Your Own, Personal Joseph Smith

[Viking]

If I were still a believing Moh'mon, the only form of JS that I could accept is the version that follows:

• Truly saw god and called to be a prophet as a result
• Received at times, true divine inspiration/revelation
• Progressively corrupted by power, ego and perhaps greed, and as a result made up a lot of things (pick your poison here...a reasonable amount to choose from). Dug himself into many holes, the last of which cost him his life.

The infallible Joseph--not in his personal life, but indeed also in his prophetic life--is simply implausible. If, for example, he were to be at the "judgement bar of God", I would point to him and ask the Supreme Being, "what's that guy doing here??"

I've always maintained that while I believe the collective body of "stuff" likely made up puts him more in the category of huckster than prophet, I also maintain that he, if he DID see God, is likely a great place to start in terms of conceptual--not literal--religion. Another way of saying this is that while I reject entirely that Mormonism is the one true church, there might be some very important truths in its teachings that make it an important enough religious movement to affiliate with...if (and a big if)...Joseph Smith saw God.

[Babs]

If you add another comma in the title it'd make a great depeche mode cover.

[jay santos]

If I were still a believing Moh'mon, the only form of JS that I can accept is the version that follows:

• Truly saw god and called to be a prophet as a result
• Received at times, true divine inspiration/revelation
• Progressively corrupted by power, ego and perhaps greed, and as a result made up a lot of things (pick your poison here...a reasonable amount to choose from)

The infallible Joseph--not in his personal life, but indeed also in his prophetic life--is simply implausible. If, for example, he were to be at the "judgement bar of God", I would point to him and ask the Supreme Being, "what's that guy doing here??"

I've always maintained that while I believe the collective body of "stuff" likely made up puts him more in the category of huckster than prophet, I also maintain that he, if he DID see God, is likely a great place to start in terms of conceptual--not literal--religion. Another way of saying this is that while I reject entirely that Mormonism is the one true church, there might be some very important truths in its teachings that make it an important enough religious movement to affiliate with...if (and a big if)...Joseph Smith saw God.

Perhaps expressed a little stronger than I would say it, but I mostly agree.

There's A LOT of stuff Joseph did and said where the plausible Mormon apologetic answer is something like "he wasn't speaking as a prophet in that instance and was probably stretching". Things like Zelph, Kinderhook plates, polyandry, aspects of King Follet, Adam-On-Di-Ahman, Book of Abraham as literal translation, some of the Bible retranslation and Hebrew studies stuff. You can come up with faithful, plausible answer as to why none of this completely ruins his legacy or Mormonism as a faith, but you're left with a view of Joseph Smith that's fairly impotent. You pretty much have to evolve to something like Viking describes here.

[jay santos]

If you add another comma in the title it'd make a great depeche mode cover.

I think that was likely intentional. And are you sure an additional comma is necessary?

[Viking]

If you add another comma in the title it'd make a great depeche mode cover.

I was trying to be cute. Nice catch.

[Babs]

I think that was likely intentional. And are you sure an additional comma is necessary?

only if you want to capture the phrasing. (I think it was intentional, too.)

[jay santos]

And Viking nailed one of my pet peeves about Joseph Smith discussion.

Nearly every time a critical Joseph Smith discussion comes up, a faithful apologist will suggest that we have no belief in infallibility.

Fallibility in terms of behavior is a non-issue. It's very reasonable and biblically correct to admit a prophet of God could engage in some sort of nefarious behavior. Lying, thieving, committing adultery, even murder. Don't muddy the waters, that's not what we're talking about here!

Fallibility in terms of doctrine and truthfulness of stated revelation is a BIG deal. If a prophet says he has 10 revelations and three are correct and the other seven are completely made up. How is that helpful at all? A bogus revelation calls EVERYTHING into question.

Dishonesty is fine. "Where were you Joseph?" "Sorry Emma, had to work late." That's fine. "What were you doing with that girl, Joseph?" "God threatened me with flaming sword to marry her and wants me to base the entirety of the doctrine of his restored church on this principle of plural marriage." That's the kind of thing that would turn EVERYTHING upside down if proven to be a lie. (not that I'm implying it's a lie)

[jay santos]

only if you want to capture the phrasing. (I think it was intentional, too.)

I thought of it as a list of modifiers. ie Big, blue bear. Your own, personal Jesus.

[Babs]

I thought of it as a list of modifiers. ie Big, blue bear. Your own, personal Jesus.

yes. That's what I meant. Gramatically unnecessary, but the singer adds a pause:

Your own ... personal . . . . . jesus.

[Viking]

yes. That's what I meant. Gramatically unnecessary, but the singer adds a pause:

Your own ... personal . . . . . jesus.

If I meant to be 100% akin to DM, I would have written: "Your own, personal...Joseph Smith".

Wuap, can we get a ruling here?

[old_gregg]

If I meant to be 100% akin to DM, I would have written: "Your own, personal...Joseph Smith".

Wuap, can we get a ruling here?

i think the ruling is that depeche mode blows and is music for nancies

[jay santos]

If I meant to be 100% akin to DM, I would have written: "Your own, personal...Joseph Smith".

Wuap, can we get a ruling here?

Agree. I'm very disappointed with Babs' comma comment.

[Viking]

And Viking nailed one of my pet peeves about Joseph Smith discussion.

Nearly every time a critical Joseph Smith discussion comes up, a faithful apologist will suggest that we have no belief in infallibility.

Fallibility in terms of behavior is a non-issue. It's very reasonable and biblically correct to admit a prophet of God could engage in some sort of nefarious behavior. Lying, thieving, committing adultery, even murder. Don't muddy the waters, that's not what we're talking about here!

Fallibility in terms of doctrine and truthfulness of stated revelation is a BIG deal. If a prophet says he has 10 revelations and three are correct and the other seven are completely made up. How is that helpful at all? A bogus revelation calls EVERYTHING into question.

Dishonesty is fine. "Where were you Joseph?" "Sorry Emma, had to work late." That's fine. "What were you doing with that girl, Joseph?" "God threatened me with flaming sword to marry her and wants me to base the entirety of the doctrine of his restored church on this principle of plural marriage." That's the kind of thing that would turn EVERYTHING upside down if proven to be a lie. (not that I'm implying it's a lie)

As a teen (my b-day is JS's death date, so I thought about this a lot), I often wondered if God "took" JS from the earth because of all of his nonsense.

[pellegrino]

If I meant to be 100% akin to DM, I would have written: "Your own, personal...Joseph Smith".

Wuap, can we get a ruling here?

wuap is cavorting with other philosophiae doctorum at present. He won't be available until later.

[Babs]

Agree. I'm very disappointed with Babs' comma comment.

I told you...I wasn't talking about grammar. I was talking about the aural phrasing.

I'll have you know you're talking to the 2011 Outstanding 1L paper winner. (Eat your heart out, banana-man.) So don't even start no grammar smack with me!