Joseph Smith: Drunk, Hornball, Prophet

[Valentinus1]

I have talked to some LDS people who are familiar with the history of JS and that includes the not so flattering side. But I'm curious, how is it that many LDS who are intelligent beings still be okay with Joseph's prophetic calling? I don't mean to antagonize.

I'm sincerely asking. My family is LDS, except for Mom who is now agnostic and Dad is an atheist but my siblings are active. I'm an 'evangelical'. Since many LDS posters at CARM cannot give a straight answer, I figured I would ask a more abrasive and 'hostile' (I don't mean it maliciously) group of posters. This seems more of an honest board anyway.

Thanks.

Valentinus

[MikeWaters]

We are not interested in your games. Go back to the board you came from.

[Valentinus1]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We are not interested in your games. Go back to the board you came from.

What games? Its an honest question. Are you so pretentious as to avoid a simple question?

Its not just Mormonism that I have questions and issues with, its the Christian faith/history as well.

I question the integrity of both histories. Especially since I think Eusebius (the Father of Church History) is a bastard and has a bastardized and false testimony of history.

Valentinus

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Valentinus1

What games? Its an honest question. Are you so pretentious as to avoid a simple question?

Its not just Mormonism that I have questions and issues with, its the Christian faith/history as well.

I question the integrity of both histories. Especially since I think Eusebius (the Father of Church History) is a bastard and has a bastardized and false testimony of history.

Valentinus

We get many wannabe provocateurs here and the allusion to the ancient
gnostic of Alexandria was a signal that you may just be trolling. This is not a place for exMos to just bash the Church. We are provocative and inquisitive but have no designs to simply rip on the Church because some may have left it.

[Valentinus1]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We get many wannabe provocateurs here and the allusion to the ancient
gnostic of Alexandria was a signal that you may just be trolling. This is not a place for exMos to just bash the Church. We are provocative and inquisitive but have no designs to simply rip on the Church because some may have left it.

I understand any hesitation. I will leave the 'anti-' or 'ex-mo' for the hostile posters at CARM. I will also try to avoid the drive-by comments. Sometimes that is all I have time for since I spend most my time in class, the library or at work.

I like your assessment of Valentinus. I'm actually somewhat intrigued by the commonalities that I see between Gnosticism and Mormonism.

I'm also not an any kind of 'Mo'. Its just in the family tree. It initially stopped in my immediate family because of my mom (who is an 'on paper member') and my father who is an atheist.

I asked what I did in the OP because I don't believe for a second that any prophet of God was perfect in action and thought. What many accuse JS and Mormonism of, I will be bold enough to do the same to mainstream Christianity and evangelicals.

They will call it an 'ad hominem' attack or some kind of b.s. like that but it is their own ignorance and poor philosophy that disallows them an actual thought.

Thanks for the response Archaea.

Valentinus

[Archaea]

Calling JS a hornball and drunk didn't look like an honest approach. By tradition, the prophet Noah, got drunk and was laid to bare for all to see. By any stretch of imagination calling his father a drunk may have been correct, but JS no.

JS was an interesting character but if that is what you get out of him, we probably don't have a lot to discuss. We know elements of his history but to distill it down to those two elements started you off on a bad foot.

I'm only left to judge Valentinus from the words of Tertulian, who himself had an interesting history. But I don't know enough about him and many have remarked concerning similarities between Smith's works and gnosticism.

[Valentinus1]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Calling JS a hornball and drunk didn't look like an honest approach.

JS was an interesting character but if that is what you get out of him, we probably don't have a lot to discuss. We know elements of his history but to distill it down to those two elements started you off on a bad foot.

I'm only left to judge Valentinus from the words of Tertulian, who himself had an interesting history. But I don't know enough about him and many have remarked concerning similarities between Smith's works and gnosticism.

I apologize for the misrepresentation. I should have chosen more tactful words to express his history.

Honestly, I don't know that he is any less a prophet than say Abraham or Moses.

Tertulian is a good source. But try to avoid the hostile bias that is found from Irenaeus.

Valentinus

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Valentinus1

I apologize for the misrepresentation. I should have chosen more tactful words to express his history.

Honestly, I don't know that he is any less a prophet than say Abraham or Moses.

Tertulian is a good source. But try to avoid the hostile bias that is found from Irenaeus.

Valentinus

Iraeneus was very biased and really ramped up the witch hunting with his Against Heresies. But, we know a little about the ancient Christians, even from a very biased point of view, because of him.

I like Polycarp or some of the others better than Iraneus, whom I'm not a big fan of. Origen is fascinating for me, especially how he fell out of grace with the Orthodox Church.

[Archaea]

To answer a question which probably doesn't deserve an answer, people feel or believe Joseph Smith to have served as a prophet based upon their reading and feelings following such readings of his writings.

And if points come up which paint him in a negative light, they resolve it manifold ways. As to the two issues to which you crassly alluded, the facts surrounding such information are vague and insubstantial enough to support the wildest accusations by his detractors, i.e., no credible evidence suggests he was a wanton drunk [nobody besides a few nuts suggest he didn't drink], and nobody can identify the nature of his intimate relations, even though many are interested therein.

First, they ignore and believe the facts are not presented accurately, or simply choose to disregard them.

Second, they make provision for imperfections based on their knowledge of human frailty. Mormons don't see the office of prophet as much more than another church calling so sometimes they are quite imperfect.

But you already knew these answers. Belief in who JS is not tied to empirical evidence alone or in spite of the evidence but based one's own perceptions and experiences with such belief.

[Valentinus1]

Originally Posted by Archaea

To answer a question which probably doesn't deserve an answer, people feel or believe Joseph Smith to have served as a prophet based upon their reading and feelings following such readings of his writings.

And if points come up which paint him in a negative light, they resolve it manifold ways. As to the two issues to which you crassly alluded, the facts surrounding such information are vague and insubstantial enough to support the wildest accusations by his detractors, i.e., no credible evidence suggests he was a wanton drunk [nobody besides a few nuts suggest he didn't drink], and nobody can identify the nature of his intimate relations, even though many are interested therein.

First, they ignore and believe the facts are not presented accurately, or simply choose to disregard them.

Second, they make provision for imperfections based on their knowledge of human frailty. Mormons don't see the office of prophet as much more than another church calling so sometimes they are quite imperfect.

But you already knew these answers. Belief in who JS is not tied to empirical evidence alone or in spite of the evidence but based one's own perceptions and experiences with such belief.

Then I'm going to apologize for a very poor opening post. I'll work on that. As for the accusations, I will place them in the presumptuous and debatable rumor pile merely for lack of evidence and sustainability.

Your last paragraph reminded me of a conversation with a 'liberal' Mormon. He stated that he does not consider the Pearl of Great Price or the Book of Mormon to be translations of any text, but more as JS inspired ideas concerning the Savior, salvation and principles of life.

He finds the documents to be the vessel for eternal truths in which Latter-day Saints adhere. Would this be accurate for most LDS of a more liberal mindset or inappropriate to simply ask the question because you or anyone else cannot speak for a majority?