Home Page › Forums › History and Doctrine Discussions › The Purposes of God Cannot Be Frustrated
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 3, 2009 at 2:34 am #203840
Anonymous
GuestThe title is from DC3:1 I taught Gospel Doctrine this week. This year’s course is
Doctrine & Covenants and Church History. Lesson 4 is Remember the New Covenant, Even the Book of Mormon. The lesson manual has abandoned the idea of following the development of the Church and the reception of the revelations through time and instead has moved to a topical format. My knee-jerk reaction is to attribute this to a desire to avoid tough topics in church history and make the teachers stick to some abstract doctrine or principal.
The lesson is supposed to be focused on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It covers DC 3 and 10 and a bunch of JS-H.
While I did cover most of the scriptures included in the lesson I went a completely different direction with it. This was the exact lesson I needed at this moment of time. (I have been seriously considering leaving activity in the Church for a while.)
But the real point of the lesson was the fact that the purposes of God cannot be frustrated by Joseph Smith’s boneheaded weaknesses. This is a major and significant lesson.
Joseph was praying for forgiveness the night that Moroni came because he had become a lazy prankster who liked to dig for buried treasure. He knew he was not someone who would be expected to be a Prophet–there was nothing exceptional about him. He was not preparing himself very well for any great work.
But it was OK. God was going to use him anyway. Moroni comes to see him.
Then he meets Emma while employed digging for a long lost Spanish silver mine down by Harmony PA and instead of getting a real job and making himself respectable, he just dishonors Emma’s family and runs off with her to get married without blessing or permission. This was a selfish and impulsive act contrary to one of the 10 commandments. Can you imagine how he would be lauded in the Church today if he had stayed for a year working on a local farm proving himself to get Emma’s parents permission? But we largely ignore the elopement.
But it was OK. God was going to use him anyway. He gets the plates.
Then he gives the 116 pages to Martin after not taking no for an answer and a lifetime of Father Lehi’s work is gone in an instant. All Lehi’s blood sweat and tears put into his record are thrown down the drain because Joseph is a stubborn and disobedient sod.
But it was OK. God was going to use him anyway. He got the plates back and finished the rest of the book and the Small Plates of Nephi cover the gap in the story (to a certain extent).
The lesson covered the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon, but I taught the lesson of how Joseph kept failing during the process of bringing forth the Book of Mormon (I only mentioned the elopement in passing) and how that was OK because he repented and the work of God rolled forward.
One cannot read Sections 3 and 10 honestly and think anything other than Joseph’s falling from his calling was not only possible but might have seemed at times likely. The doctrine of the Prophet not ever being able to lead the Church astray comes much latter. (It is found in the excerpted conference talks by Wilford Woodruff after the Manifesto in the PofGP.) In 1828 and the years following, it probably seemed likely to even Joseph that he would be rejected.
I also find it interesting that he is directly reproved in Section 3 verse 4 for his “carnal desires”. It is no surprise that later it is precisely his carnal desires leading to Fanny Alger and Marinda Knight and so many others that lead so many of the early Church leaders to conclude he was a fallen Prophet and leave his side.
I have a testimony that despite all Joseph’s weaknesses–including being too often a petty dictator and horny lustmonger–he was the Lord’s chosen. He made many mistakes, many serious mistakes. They ended up costing him his life. But his mistakes did not frustrate the purposes of God. The restoration happened, imperfectly, but it happened.
And so today the Church rolls forward. Imperfectly (very very imperfectly) but it rolls forward. Some cannot abide the imperfections. I don’t blame them. Sometimes I want to join them. Often even. But no imperfections, no matter how ugly or pervasive, can stop the work of God entirely. It is too hard for me to remember that truth.
I love Joseph Smith. I want to slap him upside the head for being so often a total idiot. But I love him just the same.
This is where I am at today anyway.
February 3, 2009 at 4:15 am #215278Anonymous
GuestThat is a fabulous lesson, and it is a pretty good description of how I view him – as I’ve said elsewhere, a greatly flawed prophet who lived a flawed but great life. Thanks for sharing it.
February 3, 2009 at 7:54 am #215279Anonymous
GuestI wish I could agree with Bouvet. But I cannot. JS claimed incredible things. He developed a wholly new theology. A decidedly unorthodox theology. God and Jesus are separate beings. It is either true or it is not. The church stands on this principle. The first vision is its proof claim, and its only one. If you believe in Mormonism you MUST believe in the FV. But it is sadly a fairy tale of the highest order likely created to justify JS’s prophethood. The evidence says as much. February 3, 2009 at 4:59 pm #215280Anonymous
GuestThanks for sharing your approach to that lesson Bouvet. It sounds like you went further into the foibles of Joseph, which I think people really need to come to grips with. Honestly, I find the real history fascinating! It is so much more interesting than the old mythology I grew up with. It’s very real and personal, something I feel like I can connect with more. curt wrote:He developed a wholly new theology. A decidedly unorthodox theology.
Curt, I agree with this statement. Do you see that as positive or negative? Unorthodox theology isn’t bad per se, especially if the orthodox stifles the pursuit of truth.
curt wrote:It is either true or it is not. The church stands on this principle. The first vision is its proof claim, and its only one. If you believe in Mormonism you MUST believe in the FV. But it is sadly a fairy tale of the highest order likely created to justify JS’s prophethood. The evidence says as much.
Are you sure you know what everyone in Mormonism “must” believe? If the evidence were so clear, there wouldn’t be so many thousands of people disagreeing about it. It is far too simplistic to reduce an entire religion and theology to either all true or all false. If you can figure out what is “true,” then you just bested 3,000 years of the greatest minds in philosophy.
Some people in the Church claim the all-or-nothing truth paradigm, indeed many leaders have said that in recent years. I think we all here would agree that is a dangerous proposition for the LDS Church to make.
February 3, 2009 at 6:13 pm #215281Anonymous
GuestBouvet – what a great post! February 3, 2009 at 6:20 pm #215282Anonymous
Guestcurt wrote:I wish I could agree with Bouvet. But I cannot. JS claimed incredible things. He developed a wholly new theology. A decidedly unorthodox theology. God and Jesus are separate beings. It is either true or it is not. The church stands on this principle. The first vision is its proof claim, and its only one. If you believe in Mormonism you MUST believe in the FV. But it is sadly a fairy tale of the highest order likely created to justify JS’s prophethood. The evidence says as much.
I’m not sure what I said that lead you to believe that I think the First Vision is a “fairy tale”. I don’t think that at all. I believe the First Vision happened. I don’t think it has much to do with the restoration. But it happened. Only much later did Joseph tie the First Vision into the conversion narrative. The vast majority of the converts to the Church during Joseph’s lifetime didn’t hear about the First Vision until many years after joining the Church.
Today the First Vision is the basic buy-in story. It is the focus of the conversion of the converts. This tactic is solely stylistic.
Joseph was a prophet. I believe that and have had it confirmed powerfully. But he was also a dictator and and often gave into his lusts and was an undisciplined wealth-seeker. And he was a Prophet, the Lord’s chosen.
February 3, 2009 at 6:44 pm #215283Anonymous
GuestBouvet — Just to set the record straight, I wasn’t saying you thought the FV was a fairy tale. That is my position. February 3, 2009 at 6:45 pm #215284Anonymous
GuestI also have to disagree with curt that the FV was a “fairy tale.” The idea that it was created to bolster priesthood authority was put forward by Grant Palmer, but frankly I didnt find it convincing. Was it a visit or a vision? I think that’s open to interpretation. And why is it essential to join or believe in the church? It sure wasn’t taught or widely known by the first members of the restored church. To me, it seems like a meaningful dream or vision that was personal to JS, but later was applied more broadly to bolster the importance of the restoration. It has subsequently been used by others as the source of many “new” theological components that JS didn’t attribute to it, such as God having a physical body and being separate from Jesus. For it to be a “fairy tale,” one would have to assume JS made it up entirely, which is just not supported by my reading of the accounts. But you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t think you are less Mormon for that. IMO, it’s not “all or nothing.”
February 3, 2009 at 6:53 pm #215285Anonymous
Guesthawkgrrrl wrote:I also have to disagree with curt that the FV was a “fairy tale.” The idea that it was created to bolster priesthood authority was put forward by Grant Palmer, but frankly I didnt find it convincing. Was it a visit or a vision? I think that’s open to interpretation. And why is it essential to join or believe in the church? It sure wasn’t taught or widely known by the first members of the restored church. To me, it seems like a meaningful dream or vision that was personal to JS, but later was applied more broadly to bolster the importance of the restoration. It has subsequently been used by others as the source of many “new” theological components that JS didn’t attribute to it, such as God having a physical body and being separate from Jesus. For it to be a “fairy tale,” one would have to assume JS made it up entirely, which is just not supported by my reading of the accounts.
But you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t think you are less Mormon for that. IMO, it’s not “all or nothing.”
I agree with all of this.
February 3, 2009 at 7:22 pm #215286Anonymous
GuestFabulous post and a great take on the lesson. It begs to question what God could do with any of us should he choose. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.