|
Over on Facebook I had a discussion with a Mormon friend prompted by the movie release of Bivle VS Joseph Smith. I had a fairly lengthy exchange summarizing my thoughts, thankfully without getting into quotes and links.
I began, "I was absolutely clueless about Mormonism when I became friends with Jason Fudge 10 years ago. He challenged me to look into it so I did. Previous to this I'd read the Quran/Hadith and various Hindu and Buddhist texts. So I read the LDS books in their entirety along with various sermons from Smith and Young. Next I read historical eyewitness accounts from the LDS and also from the splinter groups, especially the RLDS/CofC. I also read of accounts made during that time period. I also discussed various things with Jason and his family. After all that I concluded that Joseph Smith was a very intelligent con man that realized that religion could be his ultimate tool. I also concluded that the LDS members I personally know are very good people and nothing at all like Joseph Smith. In fact, many at CCM could learn from the attitudes of the local LDS members."
My friend responded, "I think that most of the world christian or otherwise could learn a lot from LDS members. I dissagree with your assessment of Joseph Smith, but I am sure you knew that already. WE could chat about it sometime if you wish. but yeah... search for ones self, and make up ones own mind."
In response, "Well, historically Smith was a con man. The real question is whether he was like Paul, who first persecuted Christ followers before a revelation changed him dramatically. My memories of what I read are muddled--I often confuse writings/events/etc from Smith and Young--due to 10 years passing, but overall I've read/heard nothing to change my impression of those men. Jason Fudge once told me I shouldn't expect perfection of character to be a validation of Smith's ideas. That's never been an issue, since anyone reading the Bible in context can see it's filled with horrible people still yet made righteous by God."
Unfortunately, my friend resorted to this argument, "well of COURSE historically he was... because history is written by word of mouth... and the words of the majority's mouths... you know it was legal to kill mormons in MO for a time? they were hated THAT MUCH... so what's the easiest thing to claim of a new prophet? con man... majority is the loudest, history speaks... c'mon really?"
I was tempted to ignore the argument since it's difficult to have a conversation with a post-modernist, but I decided to continue: "So essentially you are saying that your philosophy of history position is that of historical revisionism? If that's the case you would only accept LDS sources as legitimate, even though Smith was convicted in court for such deceitful practices before he became a major religious leader (which the LDS admits). If I recall correctly some LDS scholars reject the notion of Smith and his family being con men entirely while others, including Joseph Smith himself and Young, admit that he was involved but downplay the significance. If anything that made me suspicious. His family, neighbors and followers testified to his earlier behavior. It would be reasonable to say, "I was once involved in such deceitful practices but God changed my ways." That I would understand. Instead, you have contemporary RLDS members perfectly fine with the notion that Smith really did receive a revelation from God but that Smith used every tool at his command to push God's kingdom...including deceit. The LDS may reject this idea but I do not see why the RLDS would have a motivation to allow for this idea since their beliefs also find their root in Joseph Smith. In summarization, I do not see a valid reason to reject the fact that Joseph Smith WAS a con man (which is a modern term, btw). Like I said before, the real question is whether God changed Smith's heart or did Smith continue his con game using religion as a tool."
I wrote that off the top of my head but for the purposes of this article I googled to find articles that cover the "Joseph Smith is a con man" argument: here and here. There are other books that get into more detail about Smith's family history of being con men but I cannot recall the titles or authors.
My last response I had written on my phone's memo app but I did not get a chance to post until later. I had hoped to end the discussion because he was not making any new arguments that did not boil down to "they're anti-Mormon so they cannot be believed."
"To summarize my thoughts about mormonism, it does not matter whether you are LDS, protestant, or catholic. Arguments over historical authenticity are important to the truth but ultimately meaningless. God judges the hearts and motivations of each person. Salvation is found in seeking after God, not religion. I do not believe God condemns over mistaken beliefs, whether over biology, cosmology, or the history of north america. I probably harbor some mistaken beliefs myself. As such many in the LDS are probably saved. Unfortunately, this is the biggest issue with the LDS as an organization. Salvation through good works is creed instead of good works because of salvation. Like the catholics, the priesthood insert themselves as necessary intermediaries between God and each person. This leads to empty religion instead of a relationship with God."
In response my friend ignored the references provided by sources friendly to Joseph Smith and reasserted his negationist position: "That would be your choice. Believe or don't, I was not making an argument one way or another. As to Historic revisionism... I am not saying anything of the kind. I am saying I have a basic understanding how history is written (by the winner) and I have a fundamental knowledge that the winner in this case, aka the majority, is very anti Mormon. Even now when Mormonism has the right to meet wherever they want (without being killed, since your into history... did you know it was legal to kill Mormons in MO for a time? When Mormonism first started, EVERYONE was trying to get rid of it (kinda like the Jews in the old testament) Charges were drummed up (so sure, there were charges, there were trials, and there was convictions... fine, fair enough... THIS DOES NOT MAKE A MATTER TRUE, I present to you O J SIMPSON... you think he's innocent just because the court found him so? yeah... I kinda doubt it... Same here. The court was biased. VERY biased) so no... I am not going to take my version of history from biased writers who go with a majority rule scenario. If you were in to that kind of history, you would also have to think we were completely right to take the native american's land, and a whole bunch of other stupidities.
In summation: Sure, he was arrested. Sure he was convicted. None of that actually proves anything. SO... I would prefer to get answers from God himself whether I should follow this man's teachings or not. I would rather God tell me himself if Joseph Smith was a prophet or not. Just because it's in a history book, doesn't mean it's true... and just because it's true... does not mean it's right... (again... OJ Simpson)
Also... if you are claiming he was convicted BEFORE he was a religious leader... that means he was convicted BEFORE he was 14. Just because he doesn't have a huge following... doesn't mean he was not Called of God, and a leader. From what I know of the Joseph Smith story... from BOTH sides of history, and from talking to God... I feel very secure in saying I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Was he 100% right on EVERYTHING? no. I don't believe so, because Prophets are human... (and before you get all up in arms about that making him a false prophet... miiiiight wanna check out Moses, Balim, The 2 prophets from 2nd Kings, and Jesus himself.) and thus fallible, HOWEVER Given these examples in parenthesis, Such fail's do NOT make them false prophets"
The other reason I chose to not continue the discussion is illustrated in the last paragraph. I know where that argument ultimately leads. Have you ever noticed that in order to defend Mormonism people will mirror the bad arguments of atheists (which have reasonable, factual counters, by the way)? There's a good reason why many Mormons end up becoming atheists and Satanists. They adopt the same logic pattern and once the Mormon foundation crumbles all they're left is with a wholesale rejection of Christ.
|
BLOGOSPHERE 
