- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Shawn, I am a HUGE defender of Joseph Smith. I love and admire him in SO many ways – but I will not speak about him as if he was perfect. He wasn’t. He is the most criticized person in the Doctrine & Covenants, and it’s not close – and I think that’s significant and important.I don’t dwell on his faults, but I don’t deny them, either. He was mortal. He was an extraordinary man – but extraordinariness nearly always includes complications that must be recognized and accepted to understand someone truly and as fully as possible. Martin Luther King was an extraordinary man, but he had serious issues, as well. Gandhi wasn’t a saint in many ways, but he was an extraordinary man. Winston Churchill was a borderline (and mean) drunk, but he was an extraordinary man. The apostle Paul was THE main force behind the spread of Christianity to more than just a Jewish sect, but his flaws and biases were numerous. 2 Nephi 4 gives a much more complete picture of Nephi than the first book of Nephi does – and, looking at his narrative objectively opens up all kinds of possibilities not explicit in the text. Even Jesus of Nazareth was rejected by many in his time for not fitting the expected mold of a prophet – and, in a specific instance, of being too different than John, the Baptist.
Finally, be very careful of your tone here. I really do appreciate your participation, and I want it to continue, but you sometimes tend toward dismissal and disdain and condescension in your choice of words. That’s not how we operate here.
Old-Timer wrote:Finally, be very careful of your tone here. I really do appreciate your participation, and I want it to continue, but you sometimes tend toward dismissal and disdain and condescension in your choice of words. That’s not how we operate here.
I’m sorry for that. I get riled up sometimes.Please allow me to bring this up: the Mission states “It is fine to voice institutional concerns; it is not acceptable to disparage or criticize individual leaders – or to condemn ‘The Church’ itself.” In this thread, I have seen the following purported about Joseph Smith:
1. He was guilty of practicing unrighteous dominion
2. He was an “alpha-male narcissist”
3. He used polygamy to cover us his adultery
Is that not disparaging or criticizing an individual leader?
See, the reason we are here is that we are rather unorthodox in the way we we approach our LDS experience. Most of us have held higher profile priesthood leadership callings, yet feel comfortable recognizing the frailties of character each person/leader brings to the table. Frankly, I feel that the person who can accept the weaknesses that have been identified here in leaders, even like JS, and continue in activity generally have a firmer foundation than the person who lives in a world where the prophet did no wrong and was bigger than life. That is is how he is painted and when others find out some of the questionable aspects of his background, it really does shatter their testimony.
Part of staying lds in the face of a faith crisis/transition is learning to embrace these things and finding your own way of continuing to believe in spite of them, or alongside of them.
I also feel that many of the people here have an intellectual side to them, and intellectuals are quite comfortable questioning and exploring and learning how to let contradiction co-exist peaceably….and overall, the standard kinds of answers we hear at Church no longer work for many of us — if they did, we probably would not be posting here.
Good question, Shawn – and I don’t want to dismiss it in any way. Frankly, we probably chose the wrong word in that quote you excerpted. It probably should have been “condemn” in both cases (the LDS Church and individual leaders). “Criticize” can be interpreted in so many ways that it can be problematic. I’ll talk with the admins behind the scenes and see what we decide.
The idea is that we can look at issues, even those that involve specific leaders, as honestly and openly as we can without it leading to wallowing in criticism or condemnation – to still remain actively involved in the LDS Church (and even be “faithful” in every meaningful way, in some cases) while not seeing lots of things in black-and-white terms or like lots of other members. It also is that we can recognize, admit and discuss what appear to us to be real weaknesses and even mistakes without it making us reject / dismiss others because of what amounts to them being fully human.
I’m going to use an extreme example to make my point, and it might be a little shocking at first, but please understand why I’m using it:
Jesus of Nazareth is believed to be the only perfect man who ever lived, specifically because he is believed to have been “a partaker of the divine nature” in a way that nobody else has been. He is believed to have been the son of God and a God in and of himself. He is believed to have never sinned – meaning, according to the definition of James, that he never acted in opposition to his understanding.
Does that mean that I am “criticizing” him if I point out that I think he lost his temper on at least one occasion – or use that incident to say that he might have had a bad temper if he allowed himself to show it? Is it criticizing him if I hate the idea that “little Lord Jesus no crying he makes” – since I believe he cried just like any other baby, and soiled his diaper, and perhaps even punched a friend who cheated in a game when he was a child, or even cheated while he was playing a game when he was a child?
I don’t see it that way. First, I don’t see those things as sins, but I also don’t see pointing out those things as criticism. I see it simply as talking about the idea that he really was human even while he really was divine. We say he was human in a very real way that matters deeply, but, if that is the case, we do him a grave disservice if we can’t talk openly about what that means – about the implications of believing in a God who also was human. If we ignore and never speak of that dichotomy, if we ignore it in the name of not appearing to be speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed, we are castrating him in a very real, though figurative, way.
I think the same applies to every person here at this site, as well – and I think it applies to Moses, Peter, Paul and Mary (sorry, couldn’t resist), Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other prophet or even historically extraordinary figure even more so that to you and me. I deserve to be seen and understood just as much for my imperfections as I am for my strengths. I deserve to be treated like a fully human being – meaning my callings over the years should be discussed simultaneous to my difficulty with formal, kneeling prayer all my life. My inclination toward charity should be considered along with my warped and risque sense of humor. I am a saint in some ways, but I’m a sinner in others – and admitting that about our prophets and other leaders isn’t the type of “criticism” we try to avoid here. It’s just an admission of human frailties even within our greatest leaders.
I hope that answers your question, since it deserves a thoughtful answer.
Shawn wrote:In this thread, I have seen the following purported about Joseph Smith:
1. He was guilty of practicing unrighteous dominion
2. He was an “alpha-male narcissist”
3. He used polygamy to cover us his adultery
Is that not disparaging or criticizing an individual leader?
Not at all. My purpose is to detach his polyandry from his status as prophet. Let me explain.King David in the bible is my personal favorite–the greatest prophet-king of the Bible next to Christ. He was divine, yet profoundly flawed. He covered up his adultery by committing murder. Biblical “fact”. Is it criticism to talk about it? Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines, a practice the book of Mormon condemns. Is it criticism to talk about it?
Joseph Smith made a claim in his own history that he was in at least one way greater than Christ. This is a church history “fact”. Is it criticism to point out that that blasphemous claim appears narcissistic?
I categorically reject apologetics. I believe stretching the truth and finding implausible explanations for historical church behavior or doctrine is unhealthy to the mind.
Thus, I suggested the occam’s razor simple explanation for Joseph Smith’s polyandry that one possible explanation was that he might have been an alpha male narcissist. And while that sounds harsh to you, I do not use the terms as criticism at all–they explain attributes of many, many great leaders throughout history, including, apparently David and Solomon. (I also find some parallels between Michal and Emma).
By definition, the top male in a male hierarchy involving sex and who gets the women is the alpha. When BY instituted his version of polygamy, and claimed Zina Huntington Jacobs as his and told Henry to go find another, that can only be described as literally alpha male behavior.
David and Solomon both exhibited alpha male behavior, and the book of Mormon condemned it. JS and BY emulated David and Solomon, in defiance to the strict proscription in the book of Mormon. The church, today claims that the eternal principle of marriage — “Doctrine” — is that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, polygamy must not be “Doctrine”, correct?
Explaining the logic of polygamy and particularly polyandry as somehow god’s will is harmful to the church, because a reasonable person who studies the situation absent the hagiography and “commandment to never criticize leaders” will quickly conclude that JS had a problem here. The church doesn’t talk about JS and BY’s polyandry, and apologists try to explain — these are unhelpful.
When polyandry is hidden, it causes cogdis when discovered. When we try to justify it, then when we say he was a prophet, both our claims fall together because the polygamy “principle” defies all logic and goodness of god.
So rather than defending polygamy, I reject the practice as alpha male narcissistic behavior in exactly the same way that David and Solomon exhibited those behaviors. This helps me accept the seemingly conflicting position that they practiced polyandry and were prophets. My conclusion is that JS and BY were prophetic leaders on Zion following a biblical precedent. JS and BY shared David and Solomon’s character defects.
Shawn wrote:Please allow me to bring this up: the Mission states “It is fine to voice institutional concerns; it is not acceptable to disparage or criticize individual leaders – or to condemn ‘The Church’ itself.” In this thread, I have seen the following purported about Joseph Smith:
1. He was guilty of practicing unrighteous dominion
2. He was an “alpha-male narcissist”
3. He used polygamy to cover us his adultery
Is that not disparaging or criticizing an individual leader?
My personal take on this is I would prefer participants here to choose their words more carefully. I have no problem talking about the issues and even saying “this is why people may claim Joseph guilty of . . .” or “the evidence can be viewed as supporting . . .” To me there is a difference between discussion about the personal criticism and making a direct critical remark (similar to the points that Ray and Wayfarer just made). While my preference would be much more of the former I understand the emotions involved in some situations and in trying most of all to be charitable towards members in their struggles I don’t want to “pile on” nit-picky expectations.
I view this situation similar to someone who just lost a close family member and expressed their emotions with a few choice words — would we tell them in that moment that they should really watch their language? When you strive for charity above all you pick your teaching moments carefully.
I appreciate your responses Ray and Way. I need sleep. Orson wrote:My personal take on this is I would prefer participants here to choose their words more carefully.
Point taken. Appreciate the feedback.I would suppose that few people would call King David an adulterer and murderer, even if he did those things. The labels with negative connotation tend to allow people to dismiss him, and using the ad hominem fallacy, dismiss everything he did.
The tendency to “label and dismiss” is a polemic used by religion and politics all the time. JS used the polemic labels “abomination” referring to the creeds, and “corrupt” referring to the professors of all other churches in order to dismiss them. Yet later, JS joined the Methodists. The polemic dismissal loses the point that something can be both corrupt and at least in part divine.
But negative sounding words are not all polemic–some have rather precise meaning, and I would prefer not to avoid the precise word just to be polite.
Abomination is a summary value judgment, having no precise meaning, except that it is to be rejected. To call the creeds an abomination is to reject them entirely. However, the creeds have truth in them — just like the Articles of Faith, they are statements of belief. The Apostles Creed, on which the Nicene is based, is entirely consistent with LDS doctrine. The Nicene adds one word, “homoousion”, which my be incorrupt, but hardly raises to the level of “abomination”. The Athanasian goes well beyond, but it was NOT used by the religions near JS’s home. Hence “abomination” is a bit of an overstatement. additionally, this word would require the listener to reject that a creed is of god or if applied to a person, that he could be a “prophet”.
“corrupt” is not necessarily a cause for dismissal. It means something relatively precise: that good mixed with bad. A corrupt doctrine mixes true with false, and a corrupt person mixes good qualities with the tendency to be bought or to gain personally and illegally from his or her good actions. Thus, I could easily say that the bible and book of Mormon have a degree of corruption, in as far as some falsehoods have crept into the books. It is precisely correct to say that the “most correct book”, having flaws (read the title block) is corrupted by those flaws. That does not mean we should reject the book or dismiss it.
When I used “alpha male narcissist”, I meant something quite precise: a tendency for great leaders to be such because of their immense egos. Narcissism often comes with the territory, and in males, power at the top of a male dominance hierarchy is by definition “alpha male”.
Is it not better to call a spade a spade than to justify dysfunctional behavior like polyandry as god-given?
To survive the disaffection that comes from learning the flaws of leaders, we need to reconcile that great and righteous people sometimes do bad things, and flawed humans are sometimes inspired. We need to embrace the humanity of leaders in order to correctly discern truth from error. Whitewashing leads to an expectation that our prophets are perfect and everything they say is imperative. This is dangerous thinking, and beyond: it is idolatry, by the very precise definition of the word.
Old-Timer wrote:Martin Luther King was an extraordinary man, but he had serious issues, as well. Gandhi wasn’t a saint in many ways, but he was an extraordinary man. Winston Churchill was a borderline (and mean) drunk, but he was an extraordinary man.
Yes, and there are stories about all of these people…
* MLK was supposed to be a womaniser. Not sure about this one.
* Gandhi said “the Jews got what they deserved”. That’s all to do with Karma and the side of Hinduism which is usually airbrushed out in the west.
* Churchill was an anti-Semite (though not to Hitler’s degree) and wanted to have striking Scottish miners machine gunned in peace time.
In actual fact, Nehru was a much more effective politician than Gandhi ever was, and I see Malcolm X as a far more interesting figure than MLK (better speaker too). The authorities were more worried about X than King. Another Indian thinker who is much more significant than Gandhi, though less publicised is Bhimrao Ambedkar, who wrote some of the Indian constitution, and led a civil rights movement for the untouchables (he was one himself, but managed to become a lawyer by going abroad)
Churchill only worked as a war politician. He would have been a bad peacetime leader, as demonstrated by his willingness to have people machine gunned (they never were).
Of course, the powers that be in this world love MLK and Gandhi because they were “non-violent”, and it’s easier to shoot a non-violent person. Just like that man who stood in front of the tanks in Tianamen Square, everyone remembers him, but in actual fact he achieved nothing. If he wasn’t squashed by the tanks, then he probably ended up in a concentration camp. Bonhoffer was a great man, but he did not stop the Nazis.
wayfarer wrote:SamBee wrote:Anyway, I don’t believe in the “alpha male” crap, that’s for dogs. Anyone who uses that is usually self-describing and a psychopath, without the redeeming features that JS had otherwise.
Hmmm. A gauntlet has been cast down.I submit that Joseph was
bothprophet and alpha-male narcissist. Humans don’t have alpha males. That’s just a myth designed to justify certain people’s behaviour.
We are not dogs…
I would respectfully disagree. No, we’re not dogs but….as a general rule…don’t the most “desirable” females tend to wed the most “successful” males?
The “prom king and queen” are rarely chosen for their intellectual attributes.
SamBee wrote:wayfarer wrote:SamBee wrote:Anyway, I don’t believe in the “alpha male” crap, that’s for dogs. Anyone who uses that is usually self-describing and a psychopath, without the redeeming features that JS had otherwise.
Hmmm. A gauntlet has been cast down.I submit that Joseph was
bothprophet and alpha-male narcissist. Humans don’t have alpha males. That’s just a myth designed to justify certain people’s behaviour.
We are not dogs…
I am with Montanan in disagreeing.It’s called a “male dominance hierarchy”, and it pretty much is present in most mammals that form packs. Humans employ MDHs more subtly, but it is nonetheless a tendency. Joseph Smith described this tendency, and sociologists have documented it as well. Both Joseph Smith and BY’s behavior in polygamy, BY’s claims about the health benefits of polygamy, the concept of correlating polygamous rights to the choicest women to those highest in the priesthood– LDS polygamy is a classic case study in Male Dominance Hierarchy.
Curiously, the word for high priest in Greek is “hierarch”, from which our term hierarchy comes. The very definition of priesthood is a dominance hierarchy, and when it is given only to males, it is explicitly a male dominance hierarchy.
I try to be careful in my choice of words, but I also believe that the right word is the right word – no matter the consequences. Just to make that point a little more clearly, I hope: As I read JSH 1:19, I get the clear impression that the word “abomination” was directed specifically at the Protestant world. I don’t believe Joseph Smith even considered Catholicism as an alternative – that it wasn’t “on his radar” in any way. Thus, while I agree with wayfarer that the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed read almost as if they were meant to preach Mormon doctrine and are not abominations at all, I don’t believe they were the target of the statement. I believe the target was the Protestant creeds – statements like the Westminster Confession and much of the Calvinist foundation of the Reformation, for example. I do see those creeds, generally, as abominations – so I personally have no problem with that choice of words. It’s what I see as the later extrapolation of the statement onto Catholicsm (and then, by extension, Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism and Judaism . . . and even Christian denominations that were organized AFTER 1820) to which I object.
Iow, I personally think “abominations” is fine if limited to the Protestant creeds Joseph was considering as a teenager – but not the right word if expanded to include other creeds. I also think it is the right word for the concept of creed as “unchanging, immutable, perfect doctrine” – and I think we need to look at that issue in relation to how we tend to see some of the things we teach right now in the LDS Church. I believe we can’t let “doctrine” morph into that kind of “creed”.
Ultimately, I try not to dismiss the use of any particular word until I understand how the person using it means it. I question word choices all the time, as evidenced by some recent disucssions here, but I try to understand usage first and then, if I still don’t like the word, suggest an alternative that I think means more what is intended – just like wayfarer does to me sometimes.
wayfarer wrote:To survive the disaffection that comes from learning the flaws of leaders, we need to reconcile that great and righteous people sometimes do bad things, and flawed humans are sometimes inspired. We need to embrace the humanity of leaders in order to correctly discern truth from error. Whitewashing leads to an expectation that our prophets are perfect and everything they say is imperative. This is dangerous thinking, and beyond: it is idolatry, by the very precise definition of the word.
I agree with the idolatry. What concerns me is the “flaws”. When do you reach the point that you can’t excuse them anymore? When do you stop saying, “He may have done….. but he’s still a prophet and God’s mouthpiece on earth” and I support him and will obey him as he speaks for God?
wayfarer wrote:The tendency to “label and dismiss” is a polemic used by religion and politics all the time. JS used the polemic labels “abomination” referring to the creeds, and “corrupt” referring to the professors of all other churches in order to dismiss them. Yet later, JS joined the Methodists. The polemic dismissal loses the point that something can be both corrupt and at least in part divine.
A creed is a statement of faith, right? It can refer to a statement regarding a specific point or subject, but I believe it can also refer to an entire set of beliefs.
Quote:creednoun /krēd/
creeds, plural
A system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith
– people of many creeds and cultures
A formal statement of Christian beliefs, esp. the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed
A set of beliefs or aims that guide someone’s actions
– liberalism was more than a political creed
That’s what I get from googling “define creed”. There’s also:
Quote:religious doctrine: the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Using that definition, it makes a lot of sense to call them an abomination because they were false in fundamental ways.I’m not with you on your “Yet later, JS joined the Methodists” statement. Even the specifically anti-Mormon writings say that he only
triedto join the Methodists and never actually became a member. I believe the source of that is quite shaky, and it should be noted that Michael Morse, a Methodist leader in Harmony, stated that Joseph not NOT seek to become a member. Quote:When I used “alpha male narcissist”, I meant something quite precise: a tendency for great leaders to be such because of their immense egos. Narcissism often comes with the territory, and in males, power at the top of a male dominance hierarchy is by definition “alpha male”.
Is it not better to call a spade a spade than to justify dysfunctional behavior like polyandry as god-given?
I’ll point out one more time that I don’t agree that he was a narcissist, but we can still get along🙂 He exhibited some characteristics of one, but I think he was too genuinely kind to warrant the diagnosis.Is it really a bygone conclusion that polyandry was wrong?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.