Joseph - A Liar?

[Buzzyboy]

C'mon Seuss, virtually everything you have to say on this guy's query is slanted. And you're bibliography is laughable as well. They all have a master to serve, i.e., the church, and if they don't in the prescribed manner they could very well be out of a job. Paraphrasing a bit: excommunication concentrates the mind. The Mormon apologist always has difficulty being objective, and you apparently fit the mold. But if you want to hold on to your position and calling in the church, objectivity is anathema. You're not stupid Seuss.

The church has hidden information it deems "uninspiring". Joseph Smith's only handwritten account of his vision was secluded away for 130 years because he talked only about seeing "the crucified Lord". Another of his accounts expresses a "vision of many angels". ANGELS has been deleted from the church prescribed version of the vision. There are 3 differing versions of the vision. And your reference, Backman, says,"Often when people record biographical sketches or historical incidents they write or rewrite until their ideas are clearly expressed." What kind of nonsense is that concerning a vision of God??!!!

There's much more to go into. But you've done your spinning of events, (gun fight, press, etc.---yes he was martyred, but a "gunfight" did occur---can you imagine the Pope shooting back, or Hinckley), and you in an apparent arrogant way, have tried to put this guy down with your slanted and narrow perspectives. The church is very clever with that, as are all the mormon writers and apologists. Lest you think I'm an apostate, think again Seuss. Orson Pratt is my progenitor, but much of his writing is vicious and nonsensical, though a brilliant man. And I remain a member, though not a penny of mine goes to this financial kingdom.

[Doctor Steuss]

[deleted original response -- it's been a long week and there was a lot of spite in my first response which I will probably regret later]

Buzzyboy,

Perhaps there was some arrogance in my post (and I appreciate your pointing it out by using an inordinate amount of arrogance, invective and assumption in yours -- it did well to help me recognize the shortcomings of my responses).

I was not trying to present a scholarly treatise on the topics as I wasn’t presented such in the OP. I was merely showing that the things which were claimed to be "hidden" in the OP were in fact not "hidden." Could I have done so with less arrogance, etc.? Yes, but given that the OP had a cut n paste from that pillar of objectivity, exmormon.org, I felt like giving the same respect to the post that the post seemed to have for the beliefs of my family and friends.

BTW,

Do you really think Dialogue (the journal) is laughable?

[Gabelma]

C'mon Seuss, virtually everything you have to say on this guy's query is slanted. And you're bibliography is laughable as well. They all have a master to serve, i.e., the church, and if they don't in the prescribed manner they could very well be out of a job. Paraphrasing a bit: excommunication concentrates the mind. The Mormon apologist always has difficulty being objective, and you apparently fit the mold. But if you want to hold on to your position and calling in the church, objectivity is anathema. You're not stupid Seuss.

...... There's much more to go into. But you've done your spinning of events, (gun fight, press, etc.---yes he was martyred, but a "gunfight" did occur---can you imagine the Pope shooting back, or Hinckley), and you in an apparent arrogant way, have tried to put this guy down with your slanted and narrow perspectives. The church is very clever with that, as are all the mormon writers and apologists. Lest you think I'm an apostate, think again Seuss. Orson Pratt is my progenitor, but much of his writing is vicious and nonsensical, though a brilliant man. And I remain a member, though not a penny of mine goes to this financial kingdom.

There is no such thing as an unbiased history - you always study it assuming it is

I could imagine my husbands family shooting back lol they come from similar situation to Joseph Smith, like my Father in Law say my Mother in Law was born 200 years ago in terms of her life as a child - and yes I could imagine the Queen (as in head of Church of England) returning fire she is a blooming good

[Buzzyboy]

Dr. Steuss,

I'll address you properly---I was facetiously calling you Seuss as I thought you, like him, are a story teller. I admit to a degree of arrogance in my personality, but Mormon arrogance is so irksome, I guess, because Mormons are always playing and acting the humble, submissive role while down deep they disdain anyone who disagrees with them or the church. I have come to that conclusion after years of browbeating from members and family anytime I questioned anything pertaining to the church. I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about, I shouldn't ask, question, complain. I should go along and shut my mouth, "the thinking has been done". "The church is true, and that's all you have to know". And then I find out that so much of what I, we, have been told is bogus. So instead of asking and questioning, I'm confrontational. And to perceive what I consider great spinning and rewriting of what has really happened in church history, my hackles go up.

Nevertheless Dr., thanks for toning it down and admitting a tid-bit of arrogance. I know most who read these threads don't want to observe a big street fight, and I would be out of place starting one. But this topic really gets me going...

By the way, what are you a doctor of? I hope not proctology.

[Doctor Steuss]

But this topic really gets me going...

As it does me often. But at the same time, I do tend to forget that not everyone was as fortunate as I am (with a father that has a library that would make many historians of Mormonism drool). I didn't ever take advantage of it in my youth, but it was always there. A poster here on the board recently reminded me again (and I do need to be reminded often) of how fortunate I was by noting that they didn't have a Deseret Book anywhere near them.

I just get a bit irked when the claim is made that these things are "hidden." The claim is patently false. Are they presented in a scholarly and/or "objective" format that would hold out in a peer-reviewed journal? Rarely if ever. Nonetheless, they are there, and there is nothing to prevent a member from purchasing books on the Church's history ranging from Vogel & Brodie to Bushman & Anderson.

And thank you for being forgiving of my little attitude problem (which still lingered in my second edition of my reply to you). I have the nasty habit of becoming... well -- insert colorful adjective -- towards the weekend on the various message boards I participate on.

By the way, what are you a doctor of? I hope not proctology.

Misanthropic Misology

[Elphaba]

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.

Yes, I know, Rockwell said Joseph did not order him to assassinate Boggs, but while to him it was black and white, I don't believe it was that simple. Just as Joseph had a third party approach a potential plural wife, I think it highly probably he had a third party approach Rockwell to arrange for him to assassinate Boggs.

Rockwell's black and white thinking would allow him, then, to literally state that Joseph had not ordered the assassination.

One of the evidences for this is there is no record, at least that I am aware of, that Joseph ever asked Rockwell if he was the one who had shot at Boggs. He didn't need to, because he already knew it was Rockwell. If you know of some, then I would be glad to have it, and admit that would change my mind on this.

Also, you said Rockwell never denied having shot Boggs, but it's my understanding he never admitted it either. He danced around it. So, the order was now twice removed from Joseph, which, for Rockwell, would have made it almost impossible for him to implicate Joseph, although Joseph, IMO, either did initiate the order, or was involved in the planning.

So, no, while Rockwell probably knew Joseph wanted Boggs dead, he could maintain Joseph had not literally ordered Rockwell to do it. Someone else had.

When I read Schindler's book, admittedly three years ago (and a library book at that, so I don't have it before me), it was my impression Rockwell did not understand the nuance of lying. It was very black and white, and absolute. This is what led me to believe my version of events above.

However, if you have compelling and persuasive information indicating otherwise, I am serious when I say I would be glad to have it.

When I said Rockwell's behavior wasn't always exemplary, I was referring to his enigmatic ability to murder without compunction. When he died, he was awaiting trial for having murdered the Aiken brothers. I found him a fascinating figure--he was a compulsive non-liar, but had no problem killing human beings when ordered to do so.

Elphaba

[Guest Yediyd]

Porter Rockwell reminds me of Peter!!! He had a fierce love for the Prophet and would do ANYTHING for him!!! Peter was the same way with Jesus!!! They both remind me of my brother!!! My brother has a heart of gold, but don't cross him!!!!! I guess That is why I love Porter Rockwell so much!! His zeal and unbending loyalty!!! He was a diamond IN THE ROUGH, for sure!! But his loyalty was awesome!!!!

[Elphaba]

. Nevertheless Dr., thanks for toning it down and admitting a tid-bit of arrogance.

Oh, please. You're misreading "learned" for "arrogance," and that is arrogant.

There is merit to your concerns and a good discussion can be had if arrogance is left out of it. But you came into the discussion dripping with it.

Tone it down, lose the ad hominen, think before you type, and present your concerns. I understand it's an issue that is an emotional one for you, but unless you can discuss it without the anger (which I do not dismiss), it's not going to be productive.

And don't insult Dr. Steuss, who is the last person I would call arrogant.

And. Dr. Steuss, please stop apologizing for it. Please?

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Elphaba,

My oh my, what juicy OPR tidbits you have provided me to think about. (Goody-goody).

This right here is going to take me a while to think about:

Rockwell's black and white thinking would allow him, then, to literally state that Joseph had not ordered the assassination.

I tend to think the Jeffersonian Republican article (Jeferson City, Missouri), in the May 14, 1842 issue throws at least a casual shadow on Rockwell’s guilt (although not altogether persuasive, it does cause a moment of pause).

It the issue it was offering a $500 reward (a heafty sum of money if there were doubts) for the arrest and conviction of:

“A spare, well built man, about 5 feet 8 inches high, thin visage, pale complexion, regular features, keen, black eye, and remarkably long, slender hand; had on when last seen, a half worn brown or grey beaverteen frock coat, a warm cloth vest, boots considerably worn, and dark drab, smooth cast broad brim hat. He landed at Owens landing, Jackson county, off the steamboat Rowena, on the 27th day of April, and departed on the same boat, on the 29th of the same month, for Lexington, Mo., and on the evening of the assassination, was seen in the vicinity of Independence – which with many other corroborating circumstances, leaves no doubt of his guilt.” (Unfortunately, I don’t have the full source here with me, but it does actually give a name [Tennison, or Lewison I think... he claimed he was a silversmith to people he had talked to]).

I’ll have to check my Dewey biography of OPR (which I’m planning on re-reading soon). But, I recall he had some evidence showing Rockwell to have been elsewhere when the deed was done. It might be a while though as I'm too caught up in my re-read of Schindler and want to re-complete it before I go back to Dewey.

Also, I don’t think there could have been a third party involved if Joseph ordered it as one of the things claimed regarding Joseph’s complicity in the matter was that Joseph had personally given Rockwell payment (a coach and several other items IIRC) for the deed. Rockwell adamantly denied that was the reason for the gift. Although we could go down the rabbit hole of "perhaps Joseph gave it to him for X despite the fact that they both know the reason was really Y." But such thoughts (IMO) tend to start drifting into the realm of conspiracy theories.

If Rockwell did it, IMO he acted on his own accord. This doesn’t mean he may not have thought Joseph wanted it of him, but he did not do so under his direction.

In the end though, I agree with Schindler that the evidence (in regards to OPR’s guilt) is probably ultimately inconclusive.

As Schindler concludes (on page 73), "In any event, only Rockwell knew the truth of the matter, and he took that with him to the grave."

But... you have provided an interesting insight regarding Rockwell's black and white thinking and a possible other avenue regarding Joseph's potential involvement. I'm going to have to give it some thought. If I run accross any other little tidbits during my re-read of Schindler, I'll PM them to you (or maybe start a Rockwell thread). Some good stuff ot mull-over that is...

Thank you,

Stuart

[...]

But his loyalty was awesome!!!!

T'was no greater friend than he...

[Doctor Steuss]

Elphaba,

Slight correction on the previous post (maybe). My memory might be flawed, but I recall once reading (and I have no idea where) that there was a later issue of the Jeffersonian that stated the "silversmith" had been acquitted of all charges. So, maybe the shadow isn't cast after all. I really wish I could remember the source, and whether or not it was reliable, but for the time being... be forewarned that the Jeffersonian article might not be as good of evidence as I implied it to be.

I really wish I could remember more regarding it (and the source)...

Moksha,

I haven’t forgotten you (and me adding my personal thoughts/interpretation of that JS quote). I’m kind of gathering my thoughts about it. When I get around to it I will start a new thread and link to it from this one.

--“Dr.” Stu

[Elphaba]

Elphaba,

Slight correction on the previous post (maybe). My memory might be flawed, but I recall once reading (and I have no idea where) that there was a later issue of the Jeffersonian that stated the "silversmith" had been acquitted of all charges. So, maybe the shadow isn't cast after all. I really wish I could remember the source, and whether or not it was reliable, but for the time being... be forewarned that the Jeffersonian article might not be as good of evidence as I implied it to be.

Hi Dr.

He wasn't acquitted, but the court could not find enough evidence to indict him. I have a few history books that metnion this, but this Wikipedia source puts it concisely:

"Rockwell was in Missouri at the time of the assassination attempt and arrested for it, a grand jury was unable to find sufficient evidence to indict him, convinced in part by his reputation as a deadly gunman and his statement that he "never shot at anybody, if I shoot they get shot!... He's still alive, ain't he?" Rockwell denied involvement in oblique terms, stating that he had "done nothing criminal."

Rockwell's cryptic response is, to me, an indication of how his "inability to lie" isn't, as I said above, quite as honorable as some seem to think. IMO, he is actually admitting he shot the governor, but because he didn't kill the governor, he had failed, and was therefore innocent.

In othe words, while he may have not the ability to lie, what constituted a "lie," I believe, was very subjective to him.

That's why I do believe it is possible that Joseph could have told him something that may have been an untruth, but that Rockwell had the ability, in his mind, to turn it into a truth. And that is why I don't believe Rockwell is a good example to use as a character reference for Joseph.

Anyway, that's what I think. :)

Elphaba

[Moksha]

[Moksha,

I haven’t forgotten you (and me adding my personal thoughts/interpretation of that JS quote). I’m kind of gathering my thoughts about it. When I get around to it I will start a new thread and link to it from this one.

--“Dr.” Stu

I am certain we will all have something to look forward to in that upcoming post.

[Guest bizabra]

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:

<div class='quotemain'>

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?)

BIZ: corn1 (kôrn) pronunciation

n.

1.

1. Any of numerous cultivated forms of a widely grown, usually tall annual cereal grass (Zea mays) bearing grains or kernels on large ears.

2. The grains or kernels of this plant, used as food for humans and livestock or for the extraction of an edible oil or starch. Also called Indian corn, maize.

2. An ear of this plant.

3. Chiefly British. Any of various cereal plants or grains, especially the principal crop cultivated in a particular region, such as wheat in England or oats in Scotland.

4.

1. A single grain of a cereal plant.

2. A seed or fruit of various other plants, such as a peppercorn.

5. Corn snow.

6. Informal. Corn whiskey.

7. Slang. Something considered trite, dated, melodramatic, or unduly sentimental.

[Guest bizabra]

Rockwell was a murderer and a thug. It is absurd and wrong to lionize and hold this murderer in esteem because he was "loyal" to Joseph Smith. The man was bad news. He himself said that he "never killed no-one that didn't need killing." Nice, eh?

Here is another quote from a contemporary of Rockwell. Think he would be welcomed into THE CHURCH with open arms today? Would you trust YOUR children with him?

"Porter Rockwell was that most terrible instrument that can be handled by fanaticism; a powerful physical nature welded to a mind of very narrow perceptions, intense convictions, and changeless tenacity. In his build he was a gladiator; in his humor a Yankee lumberman; in his memory a Bourbon; in his vengeance an Indian. A strange mixture, only to be found on the American continent."

—Fitz Hugh Ludlow, 1870.

[Adomini22]

Porter Rockwell....an enigma. A loyal strong one at that. I wouldnt mind meeting the guy some day...

[Annabelli]

Owen Lovejoy (a congregational minister in Princeton, IL from 1839-1856) led a very prominent opposition toward Joseph Smith and the Saints during the days of Nauvoo. There is just so much history surrounding this time period and the events that would change the course of so many lives.

[Adomini22]

too true...

[CrimsonKairos]

BIZ: corn1 (kôrn) pronunciation

n.

3. Chiefly British. Any of various cereal plants or grains, especially the principal crop cultivated in a particular region, such as wheat in England or oats in Scotland.

Very good, Biz. You get the gold star. So if its alright to use a familiar word to mean something else other than the common definition, I think we can give Joseph Smith a break for using words his audience was familiar with in order to illustrate a foreign concept.

[NDD18]

"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."

Last time I heard the Church promotes learning Church History. Your talking about church history put through the perspective of an anti-mormon, andone lacking the understanding that people make mistakes. You are not excommunicated for talking about Church history, you are exocmmunicated for teaching against the doctrines of the church and using anti-mormon material and tactics to undermine the church and peoples testimony in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Doctrine is whatever is said in the Standard Works, not whatever a prophet thought or supposedly said.

Church History is not kept from members, it's called reading, which according to you most members lack doing. Whatever History of the Church you've learned, so have I.

[NDD18]

First off I would like to suggest you research your questions further on the internet. www.Jefflindsey.com answers alot of anti-mormon question and misunderstandings. Also I would suggest you pray to God, because you seem to lack testimony of these things.

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?

I would love to have some sources for this inofrmation, I've heard of this though. It would also be amazingly easier to answer this with all of these versions of the first vision to read, but I have to take the word of an exMormon who was probably excommunicated. Without that I can't fully answer this question, but I would Guess that Joseph Smith was focusing on different things during the vision, there could be something in the vision, angels for example, that he did not notice or seemed important enough to write down at the time. He seemed for focused on Jesus Christ and the answer to his question, which was the whole point of his prayer.

Jeff Lindsay answers this question well, here

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_first...ion.shtml#early

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?

This question is again answered in the above link I gave you. Ill summarize it here though.

He says that this information was given by an anti-Mormon in a newspaper in 1879 around 35 years after Joseph Smith died. That is not reliable information at all. There is also nothing wrong with attending another Church , You expect Joseph smith to not go to church at all untill 10 years later in 1830 when he organized the Church of Jesus Christ?

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 won't answer anymore, because you can find the answers to all of these on the link I gave. Do not post anti-mormon questions here please, they have been answered ever since they were first asked, and the true answer to them can be found all throughout the internet, www.jefflindsay.com has been the best one of those I have found. Thank you for wasting my time.

[Guest bizabra]

<div class='quotemain'>

BIZ: corn1 (kôrn) pronunciation

n.

3. Chiefly British. Any of various cereal plants or grains, especially the principal crop cultivated in a particular region, such as wheat in England or oats in Scotland.

Very good, Biz. You get the gold star. So if its alright to use a familiar word to mean something else other than the common definition, I think we can give Joseph Smith a break for using words his audience was familiar with in order to illustrate a foreign concept.

BIZ: Um, here is the definition of steel:

steel (stl)

n.

1. A generally hard, strong, durable, malleable alloy of iron and carbon, usually containing between 0.2 and 1.5 percent carbon, often with other constituents such as manganese, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, copper, tungsten, cobalt, or silicon, depending on the desired alloy properties, and widely used as a structural material.

2. Something, such as a sword, that is made of steel.

3. A quality suggestive of this alloy, especially a hard, unflinching character.

4. Steel gray.

Steel is not any other kind of metal, it is not an obsidian blade. The BOFM does not say that they used blades that had the QUALITY of steel, it says that they had STEEL BLADES.

Corn was a familiar word to Europeans prior to the discovery of the Americas and the grain that is really MAIZE. Somehow, the common word "corn" became applied to a "foreign" cereal grain, and now most Americans call maize "corn".

I disagree that we can give Joe a "break" here. Horses are horses, they are not deer or llamas or alpacas. Steel is steel, it is not obsidian or bronze. He could have used the familiar and known words for these things, he did not have to use words that meant something else. In the early 1800's folks would have been familiar with the idea of llamas, deer, alpacas, obsidian used as tools, bronze, etc. Substituted words, for "illustration" would not have been needed.

He used those words because he actually thought that they had steel, he thought they had horses, etc. He did not understand how horses actually came to America and he did not understand that steel had never been invented by the Aztecs, Incas, or Maya.

While clever and intelligent, he was not very well educated, and was ignorant of the basic facts here.

The BOFM is truly the product of an original mind, but it IS a work of fiction, one that convinced a lot of other equally uneducated folks. If it was published today, for the first time, it would never be able to be passed off as an actual translation, let alone be the word of god.

[Dale]

http://www.fairlds.org has been treating all the tough issues for years. They have set up a FairWiki website to answer all the critic's concerns in depth. They break apart into sections all the critic's so-called tough issues relating to the First Vision.

With Book of Mormon animals it's asserted that new world animals were simply called by old world terminology. In scotland our elk I do believe is called a red deer.

[CrimsonKairos]

Yes, Biz, whatever you say Biz, you are right Biz, we are wrong Biz.

There...did it feel as good as you hoped it would? No? Didn't think so.

By the way, you're still missing the point but I won't waste more time on it since I just wanted everyone to see how ridiculous your argument is. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels...that's not a healthy diet.

[john doe]

Well, I for one am convinced. I'm going to get fitted for my new goat leggings tomorrow.

[Guest bizabra]