- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As a student, I am majoring in History and hope to pursue it in grad. school. As a result, I have a hard time not putting our doctrine and church history in context with the world at the time of Joseph Smith. Critics of the church often use these connections as grounds for disproving the faith (i.e. word of wisdom and temperance, book of abraham and the rise of egyptology, racist doctrine and missouri, and so forth) and members often strive to ignore it or create apologetic reconciliations to incorporate these connections into their belief–and I’m caught in the middle. In my eyes, I see this as a constant struggle for everybody involved in the faith, especially for the elephant in the room that we tend to overlook: prophecy. I once spoke to one of my professors about Joseph Smith and he referred me to a forum given by Richard Bushman, which stated Joseph Smith was just one of, by his count, 30+ prophetic religious leaders of the second great awakening. This took me back, and my hyperactive history nerd brain began to ask this question, if we as a church abandon the cultural beliefs of Joseph Smith–such as drinking mild barley drinks, believing men live on the moon, or whatever else you personally prefer–why don’t we abandon his belief in prophecy? I mean, it was a product of 19th century religious revivalism. Is it, or should it, be a part of contemporary belief?
mikhail wrote:This took me back, and my hyperactive history nerd brain began to ask this question, if we as a church abandon the cultural beliefs of Joseph Smith–such as drinking mild barley drinks, believing men live on the moon, or whatever else you personally prefer–why don’t we abandon his belief in prophecy? I mean, it was a product of 19th century religious revivalism. Is it, or should it, be a part of contemporary belief?
He said he believed in prophecy and was able to convince others to believe and to act on that belief. The cultural beliefs as you call them are interesting but it still comes down to whether he was a prophet in the sense the church teaches and whether his prophecies about polygamy, Jackson County, the WoW and if the translations of the BoM and BoA are what he said they were. And then there’s the temple. Another consideration is the church he organized and what relationship it bears to what we have now. For me to stay LDS it best to think about what’s now and not what was. I’d prefer not to be put in the position of believing all or nothing. If it came down to that I think I’d end up Episcopalian.
“why don’t we abandon his belief in prophecy?” Some say we have. Since Joseph Smith, we haven’t had very many additions to the D&C.
mikhail wrote:
I once spoke to one of my professors about Joseph Smith and he referred me to a forum given by Richard Bushman, which stated Joseph Smith was just one of, by his count, 30+ prophetic religious leaders of the second great awakening. This took me back, and my hyperactive history nerd brain began to ask this question, if we as a church abandon the cultural beliefs of Joseph Smith–such as drinking mild barley drinks, believing men live on the moon, or whatever else you personally prefer–why don’t we abandon his belief in prophecy? I mean, it was a product of 19th century religious revivalism. Is it, or should it, be a part of contemporary belief?Never thought about this but I guess it makes sense to some degree. Of course prophecy is what binds the church together. If we said revelation was no more, not sure the leaders would be able to hold sway over the members like they do.
But like has been said we really have no major prophecy we just say we do. We just need to admit the truth.
@GBSmith, good insight. I do have one question though, if you hold a pragmatist view towards LDS doctrine, do you personally decide what aspects of the church’s history and doctrine to believe in or do you follow the pick-and-choosing that the church already does? I’m sorry in advance if that came off intrustive or abrasive, not my intent. @Mormonheretic, I think that’s a good point. I’ve noticed in the modern church we don’t have “revelation” or “prophecy” but we rely upon “proclaimations,” why do you think that is?
mikhail wrote:…I have a hard time not putting our doctrine and church history in context with the world at the time of Joseph Smith…if we as a church abandon the cultural beliefs of Joseph Smith–such as drinking mild barley drinks, believing men live on the moon, or whatever else you personally prefer–
why don’t we abandon his belief in prophecy? I mean, it was a product of 19th century religious revivalism. Is it, or should it, be a part of contemporary belief?I believe in prophecy mostly because of the experiences of a few people I know more than because of any doctrinal implications of it. I don’t know what these experiences really mean or how they work but I just don’t believe they are all coincidences because the probability is so low in some cases. I used to interpret this as confirmation that the Church was completely true but later on I found out that these experiences are not as uncommon as you might think among non-Mormons as well. For example, Jung studied many of these “paranormal” experiences and called them “meaningful coincidences.”
What I don’t really believe at all anymore is the idea that one man that has been given a special title of prophet within an organization that represents less than 1% of all the people in the world should automatically be entitled to special revelations that apply to others in a way that they should not even be questioned. Jesus said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me…If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:16-17). Paul said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Rather than saying do this simply because some authority figure said so it sounds like they were suggesting to go ahead and try some of these things and see for yourself how well they work or not. This seems like quite a contrast compared to some of the shameless authoritarian ideas we hear in talks like the 14 fundamentals and the “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect.”
DevilsAdvocate wrote:What I don’t really believe at all anymore is the idea that one man that has been given a special title of prophet within an organization that represents less than 1% of all the people in the world should automatically be entitled to special revelations that apply to others in a way that they should not even be questioned. Jesus said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me…If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:16-17). Paul said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).
Rather than saying do this simply because some authority figure said so it sounds like they were suggesting to go ahead and try some of these things and see for yourself how well they work or not.This seems like quite a contrast compared to some of the shameless authoritarian ideas we hear in talks like the 14 fundamentals and the “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect.” Well said. These scriptures are awesome as well, especially John 7:16-17. See, that is something that I will be needing to work on myself. I believe with the sentiment you shared about seeing whether or not a specific revelation or prophecy is meant for you; however, I tend to resort to the black and white idea that if a prophecy does not work for me, therefore the prophet must be false. I feel this habit of mine is rather common as well because it’s reinforced by our culture. Then again, maybe I just want to believe that because I don’t want to feel alone in my foibles. Haha.
Why don’t we have prophecy? Wow, that’s an interesting question. I guess I would like to make a distinction between prophecy and revelation, though both seem to be in short supply over the past 100 years. Short answer: I don’t know. I do think we have more revelation than prophecy.
Now, let the speculation begin. In the D&C we learn that there are many gifts of the spirit. It seems to me that Joseph Smith had the gift of prophecy unlike anyone else. The closest person to Joseph’s ability to prophecy was probably James Strang. With Strang’s death, that was shut down as well. Brigham seemed to be very hesitant to take on revelation or prophecy. Even as we look at the Bible, Moses is on quite a different standard than everyone else. In the New Testament period, perhaps it doesn’t seem to me that prophecy lasted beyond the Twelve. Maybe God just calls a person to prophesy every millenium or two?
If you don’t mind me answering my own question, I think it’s very possible that prophecy as discussed by contemporary orthodox leaders never existed–as in the intimate direction between God and a select man/men. I too have noticed that prophecy took a precipitous nosedive when BY took charge of the church; however, I’m not so sure it existed when Joseph Smith was around either. I have a sincere belief that Joseph Smith utilized the idea of prophecy–deceptively or sincerely is a matter for another debate–as a way of bringing about the religious and social reforms he sought. After all, religious reformers and heretics haven’t been treated too well in the history of the world, why not back your opinion up with a bit of “thus saith the lord?” As mentioned in my original post, Smith was just one of many talking to God at the time–let us not forget that John Brown was convinced God told him to chop up southerners with a broad sword. IMO, I don’t think it’s far-fetched to believe the prophecy Smith practiced was that which the liberal Charles Briggs explained a few decades later, that of mere “religious instruction.” However, in the era of open heavens, Smith was able to place his religious instruction against the backdrop of the second great awakening and achieve the ends he sought.
Then again, it’s possible that everything I just said is rubbish because I was ready for bed three hours ago.
For everything there is a time and a season – and a person / people, I believe. I think there still is a tremendous amount of revelation now (inside and outside the LDS Church), and I believe there is much more limited prophecy. It might be nothing more than the natural flow of history and what is acceptable in society.
I think the biggest problem the Church has created for itself in the last 100 years or so is the religious narrative of “correlation.” And specifically within that narrative is the idea that the one true Church has always been exactly the same over the entire course of human history. To make a point via caricature: Adam and Eve went to church on Sunday for three hours. Adam taught himself in High Priest Group, and Eve taught herself lessons in Relief Society. Their kids all went to YM/YW, played basketball, went on missions, and Cain and Able were in the Boy Scouts… you get the picture. But the historical reality seems to be that churches and religion changes and adapts over time to provide valuable meaning to the peoples that practice them. Churches that refuse to change, they die off, becoming irrelevant and meaningless as the world changes.
So why do things happen then and not now? Why do things happen now and not then? The answer that makes sense to me is that spiritual events and gifts all happen when they are needed in the context of history and society. Not only does that seem to be the pattern, I think it is probably for the best. It solves one problem, but brings up another: who can I depend on then? Well my next answer is — nobody but yourself. I can benefit from a “prophet” and from the revelation I experience through others, but I have the ultimate responsibility to decide what is useful to me and what is not. The awakening into this is good, it kicks us out of complacency and drives us into the arms of direct communion with the Divine (God, etc.). And yes, we WILL screw things up from time to time as we grow and awaken.
There is an interesting tension between correlation and continuing revelation. Quote:
I once spoke to one of my professors about Joseph Smith and he referred me to a forum given by Richard Bushman, which stated Joseph Smith was just one of, by his count, 30+ prophetic religious leaders of the second great awakening.I think that’s a gross oversimplification. Of course there were many, but that doesn’t mean anything in and of itself other than it was a big movement.
There are many 18th century novelists (less than today, but still enough). But that doesn’t mean that they are equally good, or that their works are as good as one another, and the large number doesn’t invalidate them individually.
mormonheretic wrote:Why don’t we have prophecy?…I guess I would like to make a distinction between prophecy and revelation, though both seem to be in short supply over the past 100 years. Short answer: I don’t know. I do think we have more revelation than prophecy.
Now, let the speculation begin. It seems to me that Joseph Smith had the gift of prophecy unlike anyone else.Even as we look at the Bible, Moses is on quite a different standard than everyone else…Maybe God just calls a person to prophesy every millenium or two? mikhail wrote:…I think
it’s very possible that prophecy as discussed by contemporary orthodox leaders never existed–as in the intimate direction between God and a select man/men. I too have noticed that prophecy took a precipitous nosedive when BY took charge of the church; however, I’m not so sure it existed when Joseph Smith was around either. I have a sincere belief that Joseph Smith utilized the idea of prophecy–deceptively or sincerely is a matter for another debate–as a way of bringing about the religious and social reforms he sought… I suspect that mikhail is on the right track to think that maybe the specific kind of reliable prophecy and prophets the Church teaches about never really existed at any time. It looks like Joseph Smith simply started with the idea that there might as well be prophets just like Moses in modern times too not only in the distant past and other LDS “prophets” after him just took this same idea and ran with it. Maybe Joseph Smith was just more confident than others about calling his own ideas revelations or supernaturally assisted translations in many cases whether he really believed God was behind these stories or whether he just didn’t have any qualms about passing off his own random thoughts as God-given revelations (pious lies?).
I don’t remember seeing any documented examples of Joseph Smith ever saying “I don’t know” but there is no shortage of specific examples where it looks like he wasn’t above making things up and acting like he knew what he was talking about when he really didn’t (BoA, Zelph, Moon Quakers, etc.) That’s why I think the Church should de-emphasize the idea of prophets because it is a shaky foundation to try to depend on now that the internet has made it much harder to hide from some of the glaring problems with this tradition than it was in the past (Luke 8:17, John 8:32).
I don’t think Joseph Smith was any different than any other prophet throughout history. We just have a fog of knowledge about prophets that lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. I think Joseph Smith just had the unfortunate burden of living on the cusp of the modern era with the ensuing Information Age. Had he lived in an era without printing presses, world travel, affluence and later on the Internet, his foibles would be lost to history eventually. Had we lived with the prophets of old (and some of these figures like Moses and Abraham might not have even been real people), we might have had the same doubtful questions about 100% reliability. Maybe there were good reasons in most of the prophet stories in holy books that the masses of people didn’t believe them or mocked them. Maybe they were just as well known for their flaws in their own day as their revelations? It would make sense to me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.