I’m a little confused. If you’re concerned with my little tangent involving the other facets of Joseph Smith’s life, then I would say, as you already probably know, that all of them, save one, are established points of Mormon doctrine. And I gave a source for the exception, i.e. the part about hotel accommodations, in a previous post. So what are my ‘rash allegations?’
The only source that I see that you’ve listed is Brodie’s claim on the ‘hotel accommodation’. If you consider Brodie as a legitimate source then we find ourselves at a gridlock.
Fawn M. Brodie, an excommunicated member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has had her books of various early American prominent leaders criticised by historians and fellow excommunicated Mormons as speculative and baised.(wikipedia) Specifically cited: “Brodie failed to take Smith’s religious claims seriously (New Mormon History, xiv).” To which this view is held by mainstream historians today. (wikipedia) So if this is your source, then it is obvious that you do not value credibility of information but rather sensationalism. The fact that excommunicated Mormons and mainstream historians are discrediting Brodie, show that she is not made to be anti-Mormon by the necessity of Mormom defence. Rather she is wreckless and irresponible in her gathering of information. Just a quick look at those whom she chose to write about, not to mention the subject matter, shows her desire of sensationalism; Joseph Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Richard Nixon. She was very inteligent and I’m sure she knew all to well what sells, shock value.
The accusations that I am indicating you made, which are false, are the fact that Mormons are embarrassed of the 1826 incident. This is highly speculative and may be true on a case by case basis, but not as a whole (very microspective). Futhermore, the assumption that J.S. attempted to make a living from treasure hunting: J.S. was stated in the article that he was hired to look for treasure, but no where states that he made a living off it. That is your assertion based on one incedent and article, again very microspective. By your same logic I could assert that J.S. took a treasure hunting job from Josiah Stowell to convince his employer the error of his ways from the following excerpt:
â€˜This arrangement proved fruitless, however, as "[a]fter laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations."13 JS continued to work in the area and when Stowell did not require all of his time, he worked for Knight Sr., who ran carding machinery, a gristmill and farms. 14’
From this I could infer that J.S. took the job from Stowell in an attempt to help Josiah repent and learn to make on honest living and worked for Mr. Knight in order to make a living. My point, it’s easy to construe information to agree with one’s one conclusions.
To say that black skin is a curse by God and that J.S. seduced woman at all, and that God was “intimately concerned with [J.S.] hotel accommodations’ is wrong and base less as I view Brodie as an illegitimate source of information. All evidence contrary to Mormon belief is not anti-Mormon, just the sentiments and motives behind such published false-hoods on the subject of LDS beliefs.
Last of all, to reiterate my last thought from my previous post, in the end it isn’t who says what or what evidence is produced but rather that one can receive or know truth from the pure source, namely God. Generally thought among Christians, faith in God is not dependant upon physical evidence and hearsay but rather inspiration or revelation from the Holy Spirit.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.