Joseph - A Liar?

[Mvanderl]

I am aware in the Code of Conduct, we are asked to not share any "antimormon" views or links. However, I think keeping an open mind is so important when such convincing facts are put in front of you. Why would you choose not to listen, but only expect others to listen to you?

Recently, my family and I have discovered church history that is often kept away from members. They don't want to hear it, and you are excommunicated when you share it. That, right there, should be a huge red flag that something is not right.

I am 20 years old, and have always been brought up in the church. It's dissapointing, and shocking, to have discovered what my family has found. But, why should I live in a world of lies, why should anyone?

I would like to know what members opinions are on the recent findings of REAL and TRUE church history. Is there any explanations? Or do you just choose to ignore it and continue on in your perfect world? Living under a rock is nice, sure, but are the members of the LDS church really that close minded? I honestly hope not.

So, I'm here with some questions. If they can't be answered, well, I have my answer. If this post is deleted, again, another answer. Don't hide the truth. I understand the church only wants to release information that is "faith promoting", but why wouldn't you want to know the whole story? If it's something that is so important in your life, wouldn't knowing everything be important too?

Taken from exmormon.org.

1.) The "First Vision" story in the form presented to you was unknown until 1838, eighteen years after its alleged occurrence and almost ten years after Smith had begun his missionary efforts. The oldest (but quite different) version of the vision is in Smith's own handwriting, dating from about 1832 (still at least eleven years afterwards), and says that only one personage, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. It also mentions nothing about a revival. It also contradicts the later account as to whether Smith had already decided that no church was true. Still a third version of this event is recorded as a recollection in Smith's diary, fifteen years after the alleged vision, where one unidentified "personage" appeared, then another, with a message implying that neither was the Son. They were accompanied by many "angels," which are not mentioned in the official version you have been told about. Which version is correct, if any? Why was this event, now said by the church to be so important, unknown for so long?

2.) In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the Presbyterians. Why were we never told this?

3.) Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots. He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons. At that time he had announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, set up a secret government, and secretly had himself crowned "King of the Kingdom of God." Again, why is this never discussed?

I would also really love for someone to explain why the Book of Mormon talks about wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, and camels. The American Indians had none of this until 1492. Also, iron, steel and glass were not used before 1492.

There is so much more, but I will leave it at that. Can you explain any of that?

[Doctor Steuss]

Mvanderl,

I will try to address as many of your points and concerns as possible a little later in the day.

FYI though, a few of the anachronisms you listed have been verified to have actually been in pre-Columbian America. The remainder may just be nothing more than anachronisms.

Also, as for the Church "hiding" history, a recent thread on the MA&D message board was devoted to nothing more than showing that almost every controversial aspect of church history has been published in an official church publication (albeit many were published in the 70's or 80's [and in some instances, BH Roberts publications were much older]), but the point being that the Church hasn't hidden them, it just doesn't spoon feed.

[pam]

I'm very interested in seeing his responses.

[Gabelma]

I can't really deal with the first part of your post - I opted after starting to read anti mormon stuff not too - it is all history and tbh proving a lot of it either way can be difficult, in amongst the real story you get impressions, forgeries, some rather interesting 19th century penny novels (they are fun to read lol), propaganda etc. I remember when I was at college I remember an interesting debate on when did Lord Hastings die - now when he died would make a huge difference to how several key figures in history are seen - now his death is well documented, we know when it occured but there is this one annoying document that could potentially change the way 4 key historical figures in Britain are perceived, the goodies and baddies change places. However at present we are sticking with the standard date of death for Lord Hastings because the majority of influential historians say it is so not because it is right but because most people think it is right. Studying history is always tricky I know if my journal would be read in 100 years I don't think people would perceive me the way I want to be or the way I am.

Plus for me anyway even if Joseph Smith did everything he was supposed to have done he would have a hard time living up to other men that God had used as prophets in the past - thinking of Abraham who abandoned a wife and child, Noah who got drunk and wandered round his tent naked, Jacob who went out of his way to create jelousy in his children, Isaac didn't know his children well enough to know the difference between Isaac in a skin and Esau, Jonah who was just plain barking, Elias who killed children, Peter denied Christ 3 times, the arguments between what appears to be the bigoted Peter and better Paul, but then when he was Saul he assisted in the stoning of Christians and knowing his personality persecuted them with zeal, and this is just the stuff the we have been told about, imagine how we would feel about ancient prophets if we knew everything about their everyday life? Do I believe Joseph Smith was a good man on balance think for his Era he did OK - do I think he was perfect No - do I think he did some awful stuff - probably - do I believe he is a prophet of God - Yes, why because when I pray God says so. This is why it is much easier to believe in prophets of the past

Anyway to your archaeology question which is more my speciality

I would also really love for someone to explain why the Book of Mormon talks about wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, and camels. The American Indians had none of this until 1492. Also, iron, steel and glass were not used before 1492.

There are several explanations - however there were horses on the American Continent, there have been horses found in Peru. However again like with history archaeology can be very subjective - I worked on an excavation where we spent 5 years looking for an Anglo Saxon village it was finally found just 4 inches to the left of the very first trench we ever sunk. The American Continent is huge and has massive cities there is no way we can know exactly - I have my own personal theory about steel in the BOM it is highly possible that the Nephites did know how to make steel - there was a tribe in Africa that made steel from about the time they would have been travelling to the promise land its not inconcievable they would have had contact. But it may just be steel was the word Joseph Smith used to translate whatever was there. I mean if the history of the day is to be believed in 1492 there were headless men with big breasts walking round the American continent.

-Charley

==

[Doctor Steuss]

Number 1 (admitedly though, I don't know if I've got the energy to address all of the stuff, so this might be the only thing I address... sorry about that):

The "First Vision" story in the form presented to you was unknown until 1838, eighteen years after its alleged occurrence and almost ten years after Smith had begun his missionary efforts. The oldest (but quite different) version of the vision is in Smith's own handwriting, dating from about 1832 (still at least eleven years afterwards), and says that only one personage, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. It also mentions nothing about a revival. It also contradicts the later account as to whether Smith had already decided that no church was true. Still a third version of this event is recorded as a recollection in Smith's diary, fifteen years after the alleged vision, where one unidentified "personage" appeared, then another, with a message implying that neither was the Son. They were accompanied by many "angels," which are not mentioned in the official version you have been told about. Which version is correct, if any? Why was this event, now said by the church to be so important, unknown for so long?

The very first thing regarding this... Is the fact that there are varying accounts of the First Vision, and that they have differences “hidden” by the Church (as you claim)?

I refer you to:

Milton V. Backman Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision,” Ensign, Jan 1985, 8

Richard L. Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision,” Ensign, Apr. 1996, 10

Milton V. Backman Jr., “Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, 32

Milton V. Backman, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1992, 59 (This one mostly deals with Brigham Young’s comments concerning the FV)

Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences," BYU Studies, Vol. 9:3 (1969), 1-27

Richard L. Anderson, "Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith," BYU Speeches (9 August 1983)

Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Awakenings in the Burned-over District: New Light on the Historical Settings of the First Vision," BYU Studies (1969), 1-15 (This mostly deals with the revivals, etc. of the area, but does mention the different accounts of the FV)

Hugh W. Nibley, "Censoring the Joseph Smith Story," Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1991), 55-101

And most importantly, the Church News discussed the various accounts of the First Vision and the discrepancies between them in the week ending May 26, 2007 issue (I can’t recall the title of the article, but Scott Lloyd was the author). But a few of the things stated in this article were that there are "...varying accounts of the First Vision.” The 1832 account mentions only one Heavenly visitor. The 1838-39 account describes a religious revival, yet no such movement can be documented in the town of Palmyra, N.Y., in the spring of 1820 (it does discuss somewhat the evidence for revivals in the area and some of the dating errors that may have occurred regarding it… but the revival is a topic for another day). And, here’s the real gem of the article: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."

Now, hopefully that lays to rest the issue of whether or not the Church has tried to “hide” the fact that there are various accounts of the First Vision, and that those accounts differ in details. For anyone to suggest that the Church has tried to hide this or is actively trying to hide this is rather silly and reveals more about themselves than it does the Church.

And as for a concise analysis of those differences to show that perhaps they aren’t all that contra-Mos try to make them out to be, please see: Joseph Smith's First Vision – A Harmony (by Elden J. Watson).

Also, this is even a shorter treatment (if you don’t feel like reading much): The First Vision (this is done by Mike Ash. He is a Mormon, so you’ll probably discount it [along with everything else I’ve provided], but Mike Ash tends to garner respect from most contra-Mos on the main board I participate on).

As for my personal view on the First Vision, and why it took so long to write down, etc. I tend to think that Joseph originally saw it as a personal conversion experience, and not necessarily as the opening of a new dispensation. I don’t think Joseph realized his prophetic calling until much later. I will defer to Terryl Givens who explains this rather well, IMO.

This is from Terryl L. Givens, “By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion,” 2003 Paperback Edition (New York: Oxford University Press), pages 9-10

“Like many seekers of the Second Awakening, the young Smith found himself caught up in a scene of fervid revivalism and confused by the competing claims of ministers seeking converts. Deciding to pray for heavenly guidance, Smith had retired to the woods to ask God which church he should join. On that early spring morning in 1820, two personages, identifying themselves as God the Father and Jesus Christ, had appeared to the boy in a grove of trees on his father’s homestead (2). Though it may be true, as Mormon historian Richard Bushman writes, that in seeking such guidance “an answer for himself must be an answer for the entire world” and that with the vision “a new era in history began,” the boy’s initial reading was clearly less grandiose (3). His personal quest for spiritual guidance may have precipitated an epiphany on the order of Paul’s on the road to Damascus, but the important truths he learned were that his personal sins were forgiven and that he should hold himself aloof from the sects of his day. Although the timing and the naming of the event assign it absolute primacy in the founding of Mormonism, the vision was described by the young Joseph and apparently interpreted by him at the time as a private experience with no greater implications for the world at large or for Christian believers generally. In returning from the divine visitation, his understated remark, to his mother was simply, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” (4)

In fact, so far was Smith at this point from universalizing his private revelation that his own mother continued her affiliation with the Presbyterian church for another several years. Apparently Smith did share his experience with at least a few persons outside the family circle, for he later said that he was chastised by the clergy and ridiculed by neighbors for his claims (5). It was not until 1832 that he actually recorded the event, and he withheld publishing a version until 1842, just two years before his death (6). Accordingly, neither Smith nor Mormon missionaries made much mention of the vision in the early years of Mormonism (7). Even in the 1830 “Revelation on Church Organization and Government,” a kind of manifesto that heralded the church’s formal founding, the vision received no more than a passing, cryptic allusion to a time when “it was truly manifested unto this first elder [Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins.” (8 ) Clearly, the experience was understood at the time, and even scripturally portrayed, as part of a personal conversion narrative, not the opening scene in a new gospel dispensation.”

Endnotes (from Givens, "By The Hand of Mormon..."):

(2). Between 1832 and 1842, Joseph would write or dictate several accounts of this vision. In the first, he mentions only on personage. See Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. 1, Autobiographical and Historical Writings (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), for those versions as well as some contemporary secondhand accounts.

(3). Richard L. Bushman’s account of early Mormonism is the best to date. See his Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 55,57

(4). Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., ed. James Mulholland, Robert B. Thompson, William W. Phelps, Willard Richards, George A. Smith, and later B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1902-12; 2nd rev. ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1951), 1:6. Bushman observes that the confusion of the prophet’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, over the details of Joseph’s first vision seems to confirm that he shared few particulars of his experience even with close family. As Bushman notes, “even twelve years after the event the First Vision’s personal significance for him still overshadowed its place in the divine plan.” (Bushman, Joseph Smith, 56).

(5). Disapproval by “one of the Methodist preachers” – probably George Lane – is the only specific instance he provides of the “severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious” referred to in his personal history (JS-H 1:21-27).

(6). Two years before the publication of Joseph’s official version in 1842, his friend Orson Pratt had published an account related to him by the prophet. See An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballyntyne and Hughes, 1840). For a study of the different accounts of the First Vision, see Milton V. Backman Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).

(7) See James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue 1 (autumn 1966): 29-45; Marvin Hill, “On the First Vision and Its Importance in the Shaping of Early Mormonism,” Dialogue 12 (spring 1979): 90-99; James B. Allen, “The Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Thought,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-61.

(8 ). Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 20:5. In 1833, a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith was published as the Book of Commandments. In 1835, the volume was expanded and republished as the Doctrine and Covenants. This volume, along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price, is one of the “standard works” considered scripture by Latter-day Saints.

Here are links to the Dialogue Articles from the endnotes:

The Significance of Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' in Mormon Thought by James B. Allen (Begins on page 29)

A Note on Joseph Smith's First Vision and its Import In the Shaping of Early Mormonism by Marvin S. Hill (Begins on page 90)

And another good Dialogue article can be found here:

The First Vision Story Revised by Richard Bushman (Begins on page 82) -- This gets into much of the scholarly aspects regarding the historicity of the revival and where and when it was occuring.

BTW, Richard Bushman seems to have managed to talk about this “true history” without being excommunicated. I wonder why that is? Must be a fluke of some sort.

[Doctor Steuss]

Just noticed that I didn't really address this question (which I think needs a more direct reply):

Which version is correct, if any?

The version which is canonized is considered to be the "official" version of the Church. However, IMO study of the other versions can give insights as to different aspects of this experience and help to more fully comprehend and understand it.

It is important to remember that LDS neither believe in the inerrancy of scripture nor the infallibility of prophets.

And I'm spent...

[BenRaines]

Dr. Steuss, I wish I had enough time in the day to just find all those references let alone read them. I guess that is why I do read a lot but also rely on the Holy Ghost to fill in the blanks.

Ben Raines

[Doctor Steuss]

Dr. Steuss, I wish I had enough time in the day to just find all those references let alone read them.

I'd be lying if I said that some aspects of my life haven't been neglected in order to compile/read/study these things. But, in many ways it's a hobby (I know... strange hobby).

I guess that is why I do read a lot but also rely on the Holy Ghost to fill in the blanks.

Ben Raines

Which is probably the wisest of courses to take. Unfortunately for me, this seems to have been tailor written for me:

D&C 88: 118

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

I have yet to even begin to grasp how to seek learning "by faith" though. Line, upon line I guess...

Also, I don't know why, but this tends to ring pretty loudly to me:

D&C 123:5-7

5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practised upon this people—

6 That we may not only publish to all the world, but present them to the heads of government in all their dark and hellish hue, as the last effort which is enjoined on us by our Heavenly Father, before we can fully and completely claim that promise which shall call him forth from his hiding place; and also that the whole nation may be left without excuse before he can send forth the power of his mighty arm.

7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.

[Doctor Steuss]

Ok, maybe I will do another one (I'm gonna be kind of lazy with this one as I might have expended a wee bit too much energy on the First Vision):

In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the Presbyterians. Why were we never told this?

Joseph’s family joining other churches is really a moot point (if you can’t see why it is, I can try to explain).

As for Joseph. First, I’m not quite sure that attending a Methodist probationary class is the equivalent of applying for membership. Also, let’s take a look at a bit of evidence shall we?

Pomeroy Tucker (a non-Mormon [you should be excited about that] who knew Joseph) wrote:

At one point he joined the probationary class of the Methodist Church in Palmyra, and made some active demonstrations of engagedness, though his assumed convictions were insufficiently grounded or abiding to carry him along to the saving point of conversion, and he soon withdrew from the class. The final conclusion announced by him was, that all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches on a false foundation.”

Pomeroy Tucker, “Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism” (New York D. Appleton and Co., 1867, 17-18).

Now, how about we look at Joseph’s own words:

I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit: but in process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them.

Dean C. Jessee, ed., “The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith” (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 198

What in the world is the Church doing, letting something like Joseph’s affinity for the Methodists and his desire to be united with them, get published in a book put out by Deseret Book? They need a lesson on how to hide things better.

[prisonchaplain]

Silly question: Did Joseph's "investigator" status with the Methodists (and yes, some of his teachings are in that strain) happen before or after he had the revelation about all sects being wrong? If he did his investigation afterwards, there could be ramifications as to what he meant when he said "they are all wrong." Good results mind you--of the type that would mean "wrong, but not without some redemptive character," vs. "wrong, damnable, false, deceptive."

[Doctor Steuss]

Silly question: Did Joseph's "investigator" status with the Methodists (and yes, some of his teachings are in that strain) happen before or after he had the revelation about all sects being wrong? If he did his investigation afterwards, there could be ramifications as to what he meant when he said "they are all wrong." Good results mind you--of the type that would mean "wrong, but not without some redemptive character," vs. "wrong, damnable, false, deceptive."

As I understand it (and the evidence that I am aware of), he investigated the Methodists before his theophany, and he also attended meetings (and some "bible study classes") after. The main thing that the Lord appeared to have a problem with (in regards to the FV) is the creeds. IMO, they no doubt were viewed as "wrong, but not without some redemptive character."

Perhaps this might help (this is from the April 2006 issue of Sunstone in Don Bradley's paper "The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism" pg 36) -- emphasis mine:

He further expounded this principle in the 23 July 1843

sermon in which he also defined the grand fundamental principle

of friendship. Joseph’s diary, kept by Willard Richards, offers

the following sketchy report of this portion of the sermon:

“Presbyterians any truth. embrace that. Baptist. Methodist &c.

get all the good in the world. come out a pure Mormon.” We

might reconstruct his message as follows: “Have the

Presbyterians any truth? Embrace that. Have the Baptists,

Methodists, and so forth? Embrace that. Get all the good in the

world, and you will come out a pure Mormon.” The prophet

himself proved a “pure Mormon” in the very act of drawing

Masonic tenets into Mormonism.

Similarly, there is a common theme expressed not only by Joseph himself, but also by Brigham Young on many occassions that as Mormons, we are to actively seek out truth and except it "come from where it may."

Here's another statement by Joseph (taken from the same paper):

Mormonism is truth. . . . The first and fundamental

principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we

have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth,

without limitation or without being circumscribed or

prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of

men, or by the dominations of one another, when that

truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we

have the highest degree of evidence of the same.

And, not that it matters, but the author of the paper (Don Bradley) is an ex-Mormon.

[Doctor Steuss]

prisonchaplain,

Here's another quote from Joseph that might help show his opinion of other religions:

"The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves."

Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498

And here's a variation of the quote from Don Bradley's paper (would have included these in the other post, but it sometimes takes me a while to figure out what files on my computer contain what info):

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."

History of the Church 5:517

Also, Gordon B. Hinckley in a 1998 conference session had this to say:

"We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive."

[Moksha]

Here's another statement by Joseph (taken from the same paper):

Mormonism is truth. . . . The first and fundamental

principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we

have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth,

without limitation or without being circumscribed or

prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of

men, or by the dominations of one another, when that

truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we

have the highest degree of evidence of the same.

This sounds really good Dr. Steuss, could you expound on this further?

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

Here's another statement by Joseph (taken from the same paper):

Mormonism is truth. . . . The first and fundamental

principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we

have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth,

without limitation or without being circumscribed or

prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of

men, or by the dominations of one another, when that

truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we

have the highest degree of evidence of the same.

This sounds really good Dr. Steuss, could you expound on this further?

Hi Moksha (always good to see an familiar face [or avatar rather]),

Are you looking for me to exound on it with my own personal interpretations, or with more quotes by Brother Joseph (and Brother Brigham)?

-Stu

[Doctor Steuss]

OK, final one (I’m going to be extra lazy with this one) -- The "Martyrdom":

3.) Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots.

So, if a man fires a few shots to defend his brother and friends from a pepperbox pistol against a large mob, that equates to a gun battle? When Joseph’s dead body was propped against the well and shot more (as some sources claim), was that part of this “gun battle” that you speak of also? Are you (and/or exmormon.com) really seriously about this? I certainly hope not. But, let’s see if the Church has tried to “hide” the fact that Joseph Smith 1) Had a pistol, and 2) Fired shots (BTW, Joseph wounded a few of his assailants, but did not kill any).

The Prophet then stood, and with a firm step he went to the door, pulled the pepperbox from his pocket, and, reaching around the door casing, fired blindly into the hallway. He snapped all six shots. Half discharged, striking three men.

Yikes! Surely this must be from some obscure source!?!?! Nope. This is from: Reed Blake, “Martyrdom at Carthage,” Ensign, June 1994, 30

He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons.

By “secret sexual liaisons” I assume you mean polygamy? It’s amazing at how many people in this world have accidental children during one night stands, yet Joseph (as far as evidence shows) never fathered a child other than with Emma. But of course, this isn’t about polygamy, this is about why was Joseph jailed. On a side note: Have you even read the paper (it has quite a bit more in it than what you/exmormon.com claims)?

But, let’s look at whether or not the Church has tried to “hide” the fact that Joseph was in jail because of the destruction “a Nauvoo newspaper.”

On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press

The above is from: Reed Blake, “Martyrdom at Carthage,” Ensign, June 1994, 30

The igniting spark was the destruction of the defectors´ intemperate newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, as a public nuisance by the Nauvoo city marshal, under orders from Joseph Smith and the city council. Removal of this press came after the first and only issue had vilified Joseph Smith, pledged to cause repeal of the protective Nauvoo charters, and invited mob action against the Saints. Joseph Smith´s enemies countered the destroying of the press with criminal charges against him and his brother for inciting a riot. The brothers soon gained release from arrest on a habeas corpus before an LDS tribunal. Then, following the advice of a state circuit court judge, they appeared before a non-Mormon justice in Nauvoo and were exonerated of the charges against them.

However, threats of mob violence increased. In Warsaw and Carthage, newspapers called for extermination of the Mormons. On June 18, Joseph Smith mobilized his troops to protect Nauvoo. When Illinois governor Thomas Ford apparently sided with the opposition and ordered the Church leaders to stand trial again on the same charges, this time in Carthage, Joseph and Hyrum first considered appealing to U.S. President John Tyler, but then decided instead to cross the Mississippi and escape to the West. Pressured by family and friends who felt abandoned and who believed Joseph to be nearly invincible, he agreed to return and surrender; but he prophesied that he would be going "like a lamb to the slaughter" and would be "murdered in cold blood" (HC 6:555, 559). Joseph urged Hyrum to save himself and succeed him as prophet, but Hyrum refused and accompanied his brother to Carthage.

From: Joseph I. Bentley, "Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 860-862 -- BTW, the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism” was basically sanctioned by the Church. So far, not looking so good. Although you will probably view the above as “slanted,” it nonetheless demonstrates the reason why Joseph was jailed (the reason which according to you the Church has tried to “hide”).

[Moksha]

Hi Moksha (always good to see an familiar face [or avatar rather]),

Are you looking for me to exound on it with my own personal interpretations, or with more quotes by Brother Joseph (and Brother Brigham)?

-Stu

Your words Doctor...

It is good to see you here as well.

[Elphaba]

Are you (and/or exmormons) really seriously about this?

. . . it has quite a bit more in it than what you/exmormon claims)?

Dr. Steuss,

I know I am overly sensitive about this, but I am an "exmormon," and I don't agree with all of the version of events on "exmormon.com," especially the ridiculous focus on Joseph's gun making his murder somehow less heinous.

I think exmormon.com is who you are talking about when you write "exmormon," but I'm not sure everyone reading this would make that distinction. In fact, I'm pretty confident they would not.

So would you mind terribly adding the dot com? It really becomes a sore point for me when time after time I have to earn yet another Mormon's trust because I am an "exmormon," when in fact I have no ill intentions.

Thanks,

Elphaba

[CrimsonKairos]

Dr. S has handily addressed your main concerns, Mvanderi. I just wanted to teasingly rebut the following concern with a mock concern of my own:

I would also really love for someone to explain why the Book of Mormon talks about wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, and camels. The American Indians had none of this until 1492. Also, iron, steel and glass were not used before 1492.

I would also really love for someone to explain why the Bible talks about ears of corn in Genesis 45, and corn fields in Luke 6. Corn is a crop native to the Americas. Doesn't this prove the Bible is not inspired?

(Do you get my point?)

[Doctor Steuss]

Dr. Steuss,

I know I am overly sensitive about this, but I am an "exmormon," and I don't agree with all of the version of events on "exmormon.com," especially the ridiculous focus on Joseph's gun making his murder somehow less heinous.

I think exmormon.com is who you are talking about when you write "exmormon," but I'm not sure everyone reading this would make that distinction. In fact, I'm pretty confident they would not.

So would you mind terribly adding the dot com? It really becomes a sore point for me when time after time I have to earn yet another Mormon's trust because I am an "exmormon," when in fact I have no ill intentions.

Thanks,

Elphaba

No, you aren't overly sensitive, and I'm glad you called me out on this. For clarification, I was indeed using "exmormon/exmormons" to mean "exmormon.com." I will go back an edit the posts.

And for any onlookers...

Have you hugged an ex-Mormon today?

And back to you (Elphaba)...

My trust cannot be earned, it can only be lost. As of yet, you haven't lost it.

-Stu

[prisonchaplain]

Very interesting string this has turned out to be--especially the good Dr.'s quotations about JS and BY's views towards other faiths.

IMHO, the OP tries to get at whether or not JS made up his revelations. Such information may dissuade investigators, but probably not the faithful.

The best use I ever heard made of the stories from "ex" members was an in-house Christian book. I do not remember the exact title, but the author did "exit interviews" with people who used to go to church, but were no longer "active." Why did they leave, and why have they not returned. He got an earful, and wrote the common threads he found. The work was not meant to justify every excuse given, but rather for the church to come to grips with why some do leave, and how the "leakage" might at least be curbed.

Of course, within the LDS, you would not go to "ex" members for that, but to the inactive ones.

[Snow]

Recently, my family and I have discovered church history that is often kept away from members. They don't want to hear it, and you are excommunicated when you share it. That, right there, should be a huge red flag that something is not right.

I am 20 years old, and have always been brought up in the church. It's dissapointing, and shocking, to have discovered what my family has found.

Well - you certainly sound like you are only 20 years old.

Tell - how exactly has the Church kept Church history away from you? Do they post guards at the book store. Do they block your IP access? Did they cancel your subscription to Dialogue? Did they have you arrested at the annual Mormon History Association meeting?

In what possible way have they kept you from reading LSD scholars and historians? Cuz, I gotta tell you that I have never once, ever, in any way, been kept from learning anything and everything I wanted to - and the Church itself and Church authors are the source of the vast majority of all Mormon history, benign and controversial.

But, why should I live in a world of lies, why should anyone?

Maybe in a few years, when your brain develops, you'll be able to understand a little complexity - in the meantime, you sound like, well, a 15-20 year old.

I would like to know what members opinions are on the recent findings of REAL and TRUE church history. Is there any explanations? Or do you just choose to ignore it and continue on in your perfect world? Living under a rock is nice, sure, but are the members of the LDS church really that close minded? I honestly hope not.

Taken from exmormon.org.

I only scanned the tripe you cut and paste from the exmo board and it took all of 7 seconds to spot 3 errors and an outright lie.

You ought to find some honest sources if you are going to act like you know something.

[Palerider]

I wonder if he could ask any of these questions in his own words...like you said Snow.....anyone can cut and paste........ B)

[Traveler]

I am aware in the Code of Conduct, we are asked to not share any "antimormon" views or links. However, I think keeping an open mind is so important when such convincing facts are put in front of you. Why would you choose not to listen, but only expect others to listen to you?

Recently, my family and I have discovered church history that is often kept away from members. They don't want to hear it, and you are excommunicated when you share it. That, right there, should be a huge red flag that something is not right.

I am 20 years old, and have always been brought up in the church. It's dissapointing, and shocking, to have discovered what my family has found. But, why should I live in a world of lies, why should anyone?

I would like to know what members opinions are on the recent findings of REAL and TRUE church history. Is there any explanations? Or do you just choose to ignore it and continue on in your perfect world? Living under a rock is nice, sure, but are the members of the LDS church really that close minded? I honestly hope not.

So, I'm here with some questions. If they can't be answered, well, I have my answer. If this post is deleted, again, another answer. Don't hide the truth. I understand the church only wants to release information that is "faith promoting", but why wouldn't you want to know the whole story? If it's something that is so important in your life, wouldn't knowing everything be important too?

Taken from exmormon.org.

1.) The "First Vision" story in the form presented to you was unknown until 1838, eighteen years after its alleged occurrence and almost ten years after Smith had begun his missionary efforts. The oldest (but quite different) version of the vision is in Smith's own handwriting, dating from about 1832 (still at least eleven years afterwards), and says that only one personage, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. It also mentions nothing about a revival. It also contradicts the later account as to whether Smith had already decided that no church was true. Still a third version of this event is recorded as a recollection in Smith's diary, fifteen years after the alleged vision, where one unidentified "personage" appeared, then another, with a message implying that neither was the Son. They were accompanied by many "angels," which are not mentioned in the official version you have been told about. Which version is correct, if any? Why was this event, now said by the church to be so important, unknown for so long?

2.) In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the Presbyterians. Why were we never told this?

3.) Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots. He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons. At that time he had announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, set up a secret government, and secretly had himself crowned "King of the Kingdom of God." Again, why is this never discussed?

I would also really love for someone to explain why the Book of Mormon talks about wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, and camels. The American Indians had none of this until 1492. Also, iron, steel and glass were not used before 1492.

There is so much more, but I will leave it at that. Can you explain any of that?

I thought I would respond to just one of the false points in this post. But before I do I would point out to all the forum that; never have I seen someone with this attitude willing to do any reasearch of their own in history.

Concerning #1 and the character of Joseph - I would point to the childhood friend of Joseph Smith. A young boy that grew up as one of the most anti-social characters in American history. He never heald a place of authority in the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He never got along in any organization. He was known for his lack of manners and his frankness and honesty. A bold person that would expose any fraud. This friend of Joseph's knew Joseph as a child. Very likely one of the first Joseph told about his vision. He grew up with Joseph and his brothers. This friend was never known for his religious tendencies. What he was known for was his lifetime respect of Joseph Smith. The friend? Why it was Orin Porter Rockwell. If there was a lie in Joseph's past - Porter would have exposed it and Porter could not be bought off with money, fame or power - heavens know many tired. Porter recorded that even as a child, Joseph would not lie. No one could have known Joseph better and had less reason to lie about what he knew.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

Why it was Orin Porter Rockwell. If there was a lie in Joseph's past - Porter would have exposed it and Porter could not be bought off with money, fame or power - heavens know many tired. Porter recorded that even as a child, Joseph would not lie. No one could have known Joseph better and had less reason to lie about what he knew.

Porter Rockwell was zealously loyal to Joseph, to a fault. Whether that was because of his initial overwhelming meeting with Joseph at 17, a spiritual manifestation, a deep abiding love, or all three, Porter Rockwell is not the person I would choose to "expose" a lie in Joseph's past or contemporary present. He would never have betrayed Joseph, whether it was warranted or not. And Rockwell's own behavior wasn't always exemplary.

Elphaba

Edit: Porter did meet Joseph as a child, and their families spent many nights together. They did not meet at 17 as I wrote above. E.

[Doctor Steuss]

Porter Rockwell was zealously loyal to Joseph, to a fault. Whether that was because of his initial overwhelming meeting with Joseph at 17, a spiritual manifestation, a deep abiding love, or all three, Porter Rockwell is not the person I would choose to "expose" a lie in Joseph's past or contemporary present. He would never have betrayed Joseph, whether it was warranted or not. And Rockwell's own behavior wasn't always exemplary.

Elphaba

Edit: Porter did meet Joseph as a child, and their families spent many nights together. They did not meet at 17 as I wrote above. E.

In speaking about the assasination attempt of Governor Boggs, Schindler notes that Rockwell never denied having done it, he only denied that Joseph ordered him to do so. After making this important (or semi-important) observation, Schindler then states (emphasis mine):

One of Rockwell’s virtues was his unalloyed veracity; he did not lie.

Harold Schindler, Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God / Son of Thunder (University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1983 [second Edition]), p 73

Footnoted after this statement is:

Gearge W. Bean, Autobiography, compiled by Flora Diana Bean Horne (Salt Lake City, 1945), p 175

I would agree that Rockwell was extremely loyal to Joseph (maybe even to a fault). But I tend to think that if Rockwell discovered a fraud within Joseph, it would have broken his heart to the extent that he would have at the least abandoned Joseph and at the most, made sure Joseph found himself at the wrong end of Rockwell's keen marksmanship.