What if Joseph Smith was just an Alpha Ape in tune with Nature?

[sock puppet]

* * *
So on what moral grounds can we actually judge Joseph Smith? I guess I'm speaking mostly to the agnostics and atheists here.
* * *
Thoughts?

Risking that you may have been asking the question rhetorically just to provoke thought, I'll nonetheless venture an answer--well, I'll answer a question with a question:

How about by the moral grounds/standards that Joseph Smith himself preached and claimed were from God?

[Free Ranger]

* * *
So on what moral grounds can we actually judge Joseph Smith? I guess I'm speaking mostly to the agnostics and atheists here.
* * *
Thoughts?

Risking that you may have been asking the question rhetorically just to provoke thought, I'll nonetheless venture an answer--well, I'll answer a question with a question:

How about by the moral grounds/standards that Joseph Smith himself preached and claimed were from God?

Which moral grounds/standards of Joseph Smith's are you referring to? Dan Vogel points out how Smith held theological and philosophical views that were rather relativistic, and so he was able to make rationalizations about say his composition of the Book of Mormon and passing it off as history when he probably did not believe that, because through being a "pious trickster" as Vogel called it in an interview, he was in his mind able to produce something good (unite his family, bring people to Christ, and overcome the divisions of sectarianism and thus generate more peace in the world working toward his Dream of Zion). Again, like lying to your wife that she does not look fat in that dress for the greater good.

He tells Nancy "God is more liberal in his views." He also points out the contradictory nature of the biblical God, saying God says to kill one minute and do this the next (paraphrasing). So he has Nephi chop off Laban's head, for the greater good, etc. My point is he was consistent with the God in his own scriptures (he read in the Bible and he himself produced), a God that endorsed lying, polygamy, slavery, war, genocide, etc., all for some greater good from the perspective of the Bible authors.

By knowing the Bible as well as he did, he was able to hold contradictory virtues and values, just like the Bible and its God does. At least that is how I think Smith thought his way toward his actions.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for the detailed response, Free Ranger. To clarify, I wasn’t trying to argue that Smith was morally deficient — only that acting consistent with human nature somehow immunized him from moral criticism. I also think that the naturalistic fallacy also applies to use of human nature as an excuse for behavior. Otherwise, I don’t think I have any objection to what you wrote. We all have to both puzzle out our own moral codes and figure out how to understand the morality of others’ actions. I can’t claim that there is one right answer, let alone claim that I’ve figured out what it is.

Everyone has a different experience transitioning out of Mormonism. I don’t recall ever feeling angry at or about Smith, let alone outraged. It was emotional nightmare for me, but anger just wasn’t part of it.

At this point, I have no interest in judging the morality of Smith’s behavior, and I have lots of things I’d rather spend time doing than trying to figure out how Smith perceive his own actions. Lots of folks smarter than me have spent considerable time trying to figure out what was up with Smith, and their conclusions are all over the map. I’m at peace with the notion that I’ll never figure it out.

But that’s just me. I understand the appeal of trying to figure the guy out.

[huckelberry]

A well known gentleman once advised against judging others. I think there is enough strength in the advice that I am inclined to limit my judgements of Joseph Smith. Yet the advice carries problems. We are all obligated to make some perhaps limited judgements. I think Joseph Smith acted with a lack of concern for some of the people around him and behaved in ways which I take to indicate one should limit how much one trusts him.

FreeRanger, I think you presented in a way meant to challenge so I should not hesitate to reply in kind. I think your comments about evolution contain some difficulties. You speak as though there are rules and purposes involved such as power and sex. Evolution does not have such principals though sometimes convenience encourages speaking as though there were. But the convenience may cause some dimensions of survival of the fittest to be overlooked. It is the survival of an entire gene pool which matters not just the survival of Mr bigwigs genes. That is why there are human homosexuals as well as human breeders. The community of people must survive and that community survives with a variety of people with a wide variety of skills and interests.

Because humans are not as strong as apes bears and a variety of creatures humans have based their survival on community intelligence and shared skills. These basic survival mechanisms are based upon mutual trust, cooperation. shared skills and shared effort. These things are not entirely automatic people have use intelligent reflection to build values and customs to encourage these skills necessary for humans to have qualified for survival of the fittest.

People may at times choose to follow a theory of life being strength living off the less strong. People using this theory end up annoying enough people that they are eliminated or contained. War based societies succeed on a limited scale when isolated weak groups are available. Otherwise wiser groups work together to insure the destruction of the vain.(Hitler, Napoleon,etc)

////// added note,
Free Ranger , you noted above,
But what is the "Right" use of power? All power is gained through power plays, with winners and losers, the deceived and the triumphant, etc. Advertisers coerce everyday. Salesmen are allowed to coerce people everyday. Capitalism is one big Power Play. Why is it wrong to be dishonest if it gains you wealth and power and provides for your family? What is your standard as an atheist? On atheism, I don't see how we can make all of these should statements and deciding what is right and wrong. These are religious and theistic notions. They make no sense to me outside of Christianity.
....
Huckelberry notes
The view I am holding is that human survival success in based upon mutual respect, friendship, trust, concern for others , love. It is based upon respect for truth, curiosity as to how the world works and what shills can be created to make human life more liveble. Humans draw energy to live from play invention stories and yes compitition. One big power play is injury to what makes humans strong.

[Free Ranger]

Thanks for the detailed response, Free Ranger. To clarify, I wasn’t trying to argue that Smith was morally deficient — only that acting consistent with human nature somehow immunized him from moral criticism. I also think that the naturalistic fallacy also applies to use of human nature as an excuse for behavior. Otherwise, I don’t think I have any objection to what you wrote. We all have to both puzzle out our own moral codes and figure out how to understand the morality of others’ actions. I can’t claim that there is one right answer, let alone claim that I’ve figured out what it is.

Everyone has a different experience transitioning out of Mormonism. I don’t recall ever feeling angry at or about Smith, let alone outraged. It was emotional nightmare for me, but anger just wasn’t part of it.

At this point, I have no interest in judging the morality of Smith’s behavior, and I have lots of things I’d rather spend time doing than trying to figure out how Smith perceive his own actions. Lots of folks smarter than me have spent considerable time trying to figure out what was up with Smith, and their conclusions are all over the map. I’m at peace with the notion that I’ll never figure it out.

But that’s just me. I understand the appeal of trying to figure the guy out.

I respect what you're saying. Just a few thoughts. You wrote:

I also think that the naturalistic fallacy also applies to use of human nature as an excuse for behavior.

Right, I agree. It’s why philosophical determinism is so controversial when it has been considered for use in court. “Your honor, my client was just a product of physics, upbringing, and his DNA code which we have sequenced which explains everything!” From an atheistic/naturalistic perspective, our courts operate on the fiction of free will (a soul) and the accused had the “choice” to do other than what they did.

I am philosophizing right now on this board, but in real life I readily admit that we act as if we have free will for practical reasons. I expect the woman I am dating to be honest with me, otherwise my biology will worry about paternity (even though we use birth control methods). We do form practical codes of ethics in order for the continuation of civility and the free flow of society which benefits everyone. Even the atheist relativist, Nietzsche, thought it was practical to be honest most of the time, not for supernatural reasons but as he said (to paraphrase): "I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."

Maybe we can't judge Smith on atheism, but we can say that some of his actions were practically unwise. Like burning down the printing press, which among other things led to his downfall.

We all operate from a unique autobiography, and so yea for me this nuanced view of Smith helps me in my recovery from previously feeling existentially orphaned and angry at Smith and the Mormon Church around 2005 when I finally resigned. Once I began questioning my moral indignation and condemnation around 2015, I was more open to finding things in Mormonism I still valued as an outsider, and appreciating my ancestors and my heritage from a distanced philosophical perspective.

I can't explain it rationally, but this view of mine has improved my existential mood and has led me to personally move away from a reactionary/victim position to instead a more empowering mindset. For example, instead of my former view, that I was a victim on my mission to cult mind control and wasting my teenage years, I now see that the mission helped me overcome my shyness as an introvert and led to my forming an extroverted persona which I can turn on at any minute till this day which is a great value.

Instead of seeing Smith as the Corporate Mormon Church presents him, I began to see Smith's life and person as more like how I view Tony in the TV series The Sopranos, as a kind of anti-hero. Just as I admire the character Tony's masculine instincts, leadership skills, and daring drive for power, I found other things he said or did in the series to be distasteful. Yet I kept watching and wanting Tony to succeed in the end. Just as I found myself rooting for Tony and not liking him at times, while liking him at other moments, that is how I now feel about Smith. I see what he is doing through the wider view of historical hindsight, and want him to succeed as he grows from poor farm boy to author, religious leader, mayor, general, and city planner. I find myself rooting for him and applauding his essentially telling the preacher that said his brother Alvin is in hell, by starting his own religion and revealing that Alvin is in heaven. I want him to overcome his enemies like Bennett, to build the ideal of Zion, to wrestle and win and laugh with his friends, to argue with ministers and present a better more humanistic theology with a sexual God of parts and passions rather than a vaporous no-thing (with no feminine divine) one finds in the sectarian Creeds.

This nuanced view of Smith has made me feel better overall. I am no longer in a reactionary position, but can admire him in many ways and value Mormonism philosophically and for its pro-masculine heroic elements. I can be proud of my Mormon heritage as much as I am of my Viking heritage. I feel better existentially as a result. It's strange but true.

[Res Ipsa]

Our takes on free will are pretty similar. I'm for whatever it takes to get through the transition out of Mormonism and, if needed, to heal from it. Kudos.

[MG 2.0]

By the way, humans are prone to doing things that can be seen as harmful or destructive to others even when those same actions can be seen by the so called perpetrator/actor as being acceptable or even moral. And there is a wide spectrum that goes from obviously heinous to ‘not so much’.

Joseph moved back a forth along that spectrum just as we all do.

If one uses this scripture out of 1 Corinthians as a guide one might ask whether Joseph was the perfect/capable candidate for a work that God needed to do in this period of world history and enlightenment. The fruits seem to bear that out.

Oh, and we’re all in a state of nature. If God created it, He’s well aware of all of the biology and natural processes that dovetail with the actions and motivations that are part and parcel of being human. The need that some have to strip God out of the picture takes a LOT of energy and bandwidth.

Regards,
MG

I agree with much of what you said when I put on my theist-hat, even though I am a non-theist. And I do have days I feel open to deism or pantheism. But the quote from 1 Corinthians is partly why I admire Joseph’s philosophy over Paul’s and Augustine’s. I think Paul was a bit too obsessed with imitating his messiah, by being weak, lower class, a victim, boasting in his getting abused, and longing to die to be with his messiah; rather than focusing on this life. But I also admire Paul too in many ways, which I won’t go into here.

Yeah, I find that wearing that hat seems to make a big difference.

Regards,
MG

[Free Ranger]

Our takes on free will are pretty similar. I'm for whatever it takes to get through the transition out of Mormonism and, if needed, to heal from it. Kudos.

Thanks!

[Free Ranger]

I agree with much of what you said when I put on my theist-hat, even though I am a non-theist. And I do have days I feel open to deism or pantheism. But the quote from 1 Corinthians is partly why I admire Joseph’s philosophy over Paul’s and Augustine’s. I think Paul was a bit too obsessed with imitating his messiah, by being weak, lower class, a victim, boasting in his getting abused, and longing to die to be with his messiah; rather than focusing on this life. But I also admire Paul too in many ways, which I won’t go into here.

Yeah, I find that wearing that hat seems to make a big difference.

Regards,
MG

And just to be clear, as I wrote previously, I do have my days and moments when I entertain the possibility of being a Christian Humanist like John Spong or Jordan Peterson. And I also greatly admire the Apostle Paul just to be clear. I can criticize him but also admire him. When you read books like Dominion by Tom Holland, you can't help but respect the Apostle Paul. I think he had a lot to do with the civilized culture we enjoy today. I have also read some current scholarship that argues that Paul helped end the practice of pedophilia which was common among the Greeks and Romans. That alone makes me pro-Paul. There's also a part of me that resonates with his egalitarian ideals.

[Gabriel]

Thoughts?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by being "in tune with nature"?

For example, is a child born with down syndrome in tune with nature? Or is she an unnatural aberration?