December Ensign: Joseph Smith

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Welcome back, Shawn.

Thanks, Ray! My two-month hiatus from the internet was great. That’s not a shot at this forum – I really took a break from all online communities to the point where I didn’t even check Facebook regularly, which is a big deal for me. I read from Talmage’s Jesus the Christ, studied the scriptures, and listened to good music. I put my mind to other things by reading Martel’s Life of Pi, Dicken’s David Copperfield (which is epic), and I’m now in the middle of Cervantes’ Don Quixote (wow, funny). Finally, I’ve spent a good chunk of time studying Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling.

cwald wrote:

Shawn wrote:

…I think Joseph’s life is very impressive and I don’t know of anything he did that would warrant excommunication. We must keep in mind that the rules were different back then. …

Hmmm?

*Statutory rape?

*Adultery?

*Blatant WoW violations?

*Having a bar in his house?

*Questioning the ecclesiastical authority

*Calling the Catholic church “the whore of all the earth?”

*Not wearing garments?

*Shady and dishonest treasure digging business deals?

Shall I go on?

Quote:

but he was an awesome prophet.

Sure. I can agree with that. But, I do believe he would be excommunicated in today’s LDS church.

I’ve missed you, cwald! Besides what Ray said, I reiterate that today’s standards should not be applied to the 1840s. Therefore, Joseph did not commit statuary rape. I believe the plural marriages were legitimate, so there was no adultery. The church’s code of health was implemented in steps and drinking was not prohibited during his life, etc.

Now, I will say that treasure hunting and some business deals were dodgy, but that’s okay! Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent; Moses killed an Egyptian and hid him in the sand, and he later smote a rock to bring out water (when he was commanded only to speak to the rock) and did not give God the glory; Abraham said Sarah was his sister and let Abimelech take her; Jacob demanded his older brother’s birthright before he would feed him and lied to his father, telling him that was actually Esau; David committed adultery and had Uriah killed, and later wrote some great scriptures (though I don’t know if he was a prophet). Shall I go on? 🙂

My point is not to bring Old Testament prophets down a rung, but to raise Joseph Smith to their level, at least.

Cadence wrote:

I thought the rules did not change. That God was never changing. So Joseph may have been a spectacular individual in many aspects, but by todays standard which are suppose to be the same as the ones Adam had, Joseph is out of the church in a second.

So to use the idea that the rules were different back then we have to assume something changed. It sounds like you are saying the church adapted to social norms and pressure as time went on so what we do now was not acceptable back then or vis versa. Actually I think that is a very correct statement.

Cadence, I think it will not be news to you to hear that many things have changed. Adam and Eve had the fulness of the Gospel, then the Law of Moses was implemented, and then that Law was fulfilled. There are principles that are eternal and there are policies and procedures that change. I don’t think this means God changes. Do you really think it mean that?

[Anonymous]

Shawn and Cadence, this is a good example of how hard it is to catch sarcasm in print. It’s also a good example of why we don’t do sarcasm much here unless it is blatantly obvious it’s sarcasm.

Just something to consider, since it would be a shame if this spiraled into a battle of sorts over something with which the two of you actually agree.

Given how rarely that happens, it ought to cause a celebration, not an argument. 😆

[Anonymous]

Oops, I guess I totally missed the sarcasm. Sorry 😳

As a follow-up, I want to stress that my previous view of Joseph Smith was shattered to the point that I expected the planets to leave their orbits and fall into the sun. I certainly can’t hold it against anyone who might be having a similar experience. Part of my issue was that I was wearing my dark glasses that filter out the good and emphasize the negative. It was a relief to shed them. It is not for me to surmise what others are really going through, but if any of you are wearing such glasses, I pray you can somehow dispose of them.

Regarding the article in the Ensign, it says only that “The Prophet Joseph Smith translated the writings on these plates by the gift and power of God,” as On Own Now pointed out. I stick to what I wrote before: The account somehow went from Reformed Egyptian on gold plates to English on paper. Whether by looking through the Urim and Thummim, at a stone in a hat while it is transcribed, or another way, I consider that a veritable translation.

The painting showing the plates might be better if a curtain were between the two men, but it doesn’t matter much to me. I would not be edified by seeing in the Ensign a painting of Joseph looking into a hat. Sure, the painting of Joseph holding the Book of Mormon “could be straight out of a clothes catalogue,” but many historical paintings are like that. I am just not bothered, but I can’t blame anyone else for being bothered.

[Anonymous]

Hi Shawn.

FWIW…I agreed with you that JS was a cool dude. I consider him to be a pretty down to earth liberal, rebellious, beer drinking hippy…with some awesome progressive ideals.

I’m okay with that

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

but it doesn’t matter much to me. I would not be edified by seeing in the Ensign a painting of Joseph looking into a hat. Sure, the painting of Joseph holding the Book of Mormon “could be straight out of a clothes catalogue,” but many historical paintings are like that.

I do think that the picture provides some disinformation…a picture paints a thousand words, yadda, yadda though didn’t stress me too much..pictures almost always show the ideal

In the church …which is why the clothing catalog look…all church magazines pictures do that…unless it is a story about a homeless person then the drawing will be of a homeless person of the most noble yet pitiful state

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

SamBee,

Neither of those last two images are JS. The standing one is a politician from the time. The one “famous” picture is confusing because it is a daguerreotype. However, it is a daguerreotype of a painting. The earlier photo you posted is the one I find most compelling.

I’ve seen both the photo and the colour painting. It’s not clear by the dating whether the painting is based on the photo or vice versa. I can’t find the painting for reference. Anyone else have it?

Re. the earlier photo from RLDS. A guy in our ward a few years back was quite senior in the church media dept. He told priesthood one sunday that the church were in the process of investigating it to verify or deny it and until the brethren spoke on it we should stop emailing it to each other. We never heard anything else, I guess that means they were unable to verify it.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

The Ensign display’s intent seems to be to flesh him out, to satisfy an understandable curiosity about the appearance of historical figure, to help us get to know him better. Also to that end, a person growing up in the church could hear on a dozen occasions about his leg operation or what kinds of games he liked to play, but I went more than forty years not hearing anything substantial about his approach to and practice of plural marriage.

When I started learning about Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, I was surprised at how little I had heard about them, and some of the details were shocking. I think it would be good if lesson manuals at least mentioned Joseph’s plural marriages so people would not be so shocked by it. The Church’s website does say “After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates….”

One thing I realized is Joseph did not really marry women who already had a husband – not in the traditional sense, at least. When people are married, they live together, sleep together, and generally share their lives. Richard Bushman wrote:

Quote:

The marital status of the plural wives further complicated the issue…All told, ten of Joseph’s plural wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet. The reasons for choosing married women can only be surmised. Not all were married to non-Mormon men: six of the ten husbands were active Latterday Saints. In most cases, the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved. The practice seems inexplicable today. Why would a husband consent?

The only answer seems to be the explanation Joseph gave when he asked a woman for her consent: they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie to the Prophet…There is no certain evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the wives who were married to other men. They married because Joseph’s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him (Rough Stone Rolling, c 25).

So I say they were not marriages; they were sealings. He was married to them as much as I am married to Hillary Clinton. I think it was the same with some women who were not already married.

I am writing a long paper regarding plural marriage, but I will summarize here by saying that I believe the practice was commanded by God. Here’s another excerpt from Rough Stone Rolling:

Quote:

The possibility of an imaginary revelation, erupting from his own heart and subconscious mind, seems not to have occurred to Joseph. To him, the words came from heaven. They required obedience even though the demand seemed contradictory or wrong. The possibility of deception did occur to him. Satanic counterfeits concerned Joseph; he talked to the Saints about the detection of fraudulent angels. But when [one of his plural wives Mary Rollins] Lightner asked if perhaps plural marriage was of the devil, Joseph said no. In his mind, the revelation came from God, and he had to obey or suffer (c 25)

[Anonymous]

This is hardly a novel pattern in the history of religion.

I was born and raised Lutheran. We were taught that Martin Luther was (in a limited sense) our spiritual father and that God used him as a powerful tool to correct the errors of the Roman Catholic church at that time. Luther was never a prophet in the Biblical sense, and he started a reformation, not a restoration. But I see some interesting parallels between Martin Luther and Joseph Smith, especially around plural marriage and personal failings. From Wikipedia:

From December 1539, Luther became implicated in the bigamy of Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, who wanted to marry one of his wife’s ladies-in-waiting. Philip solicited the approval of Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, citing as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs. The theologians were not prepared to make a general ruling, and they reluctantly advised the landgrave that if he was determined, he should marry secretly and keep quiet about the matter. As a result, on 4 March 1540, Philip married a second wife, Margarethe von der Sale, with Melanchthon and Bucer among the witnesses. However, Philip was unable to keep the marriage secret, and he threatened to make Luther’s advice public. Luther told him to “tell a good, strong lie” and deny the marriage completely, which Philip did during the subsequent public controversy. In the view of Luther’s biographer Martin Brecht, “giving confessional advice for Philip of Hesse was one of the worst mistakes Luther made, and, next to the landgrave himself, who was directly responsible for it, history chiefly holds Luther accountable”. Brecht argues that Luther’s mistake was not that he gave private pastoral advice, but that he miscalculated the political implications. The affair caused lasting damage to Luther’s reputation.

And if you think that’s bad, read what Wikipedia says about Luther and Jews:

Luther argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but ‘the devil’s people’: he referred to them with violent, vile language. Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews’ property and money, and smashing up their homes, so that these ‘poisonous envenomed worms’ would be forced into labour or expelled ‘for all time.’

In my opinion, rejecting the LDS Church or the BoM because of Joseph Smith’s imperfections is sort of like rejecting the theory of relativity because Einstein had a child out of wedlock and then started an affair with his cousin while he was still married. Yes, I know, Joseph Smith was a prophet who talked morality and God, not physics. I’m just saying there is a difference between the message and the messenger. If the messenger is human, don’t expect perfection.

[Anonymous]

Delete

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Delete.

Yeah. I thought the exact same thing.

[Anonymous]

oasis wrote:

If the messenger is human, don’t expect perfection.

Good point.

I don’t.

It is the church who has the problem.

They cannot and will not admit “THE CHURCH” has made mistakes and errors in the past, and may make them now and in the future. And they will not apologize for ANYTHING. EVER.

“14 Fundamentals of the prophet.” “The church is perfect, the people aren’t.” “church is the ONLY true church on the earth.” “Christ leads the church personally.” “The LDS church is the Kingdom of God on earth.”

No. Nope. NO. It is not the heretics who have a problem with Joseph Smith per se. Its the faithful orthodox members who continue to “white wash” church history who have a problem with “the messenger.”

What are they afraid of? Why is the truth “evil?” Why are facts considered “anti-mormon?”

Perhaps the perceived cover up is much worse than the crime?

[Anonymous]

cwald, this longer comment is fine; the previous, short one is not. The tone and choice of wording simply doesn’t fit our mission. If we disagree with each other, we need to say so respectfully and with focus on exactly what the disagreement is.

Your first comment was far from that.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

oasis wrote:

If the messenger is human, don’t expect perfection.

Good point.

I don’t.

It is the church who has the problem.

They cannot and will not admit “THE CHURCH” has made mistakes and errors in the past, and may make them now and in the future. And they will not apologize for ANYTHING. EVER.

“14 Fundamentals of the prophet.” “The church is perfect, the people aren’t.” “church is the ONLY true church on the earth.” “Christ leads the church personally.” “The LDS church is the Kingdom of God on earth.”

No. Nope. NO. It is not the heretics who have a problem with Joseph Smith per se. Its the faithful orthodox members who continue to “white wash” church history who have a problem with “the messenger.”

What are they afraid of? Why is the truth “evil?” Why are facts considered “anti-mormon?”

Perhaps the perceived cover up is much worse than the crime?

For what it’s worth, the Church has apologized for some things:

–Mormon church apologizes for baptisms of Wiesenthal’s parents

–LDS Church issues apology over Mountain Meadows

–Pastor to Pastor: President Hinckley’s Personal Apology for Racism in the Church (this is just President Hinckley apologizing rather than the church)

But I suspect you would like to see more apologies issued. I really don’t know if that should or should not happen – it’s not something I’ve considered much.

With all due respect, I am baffled by your comments about the Church, especially since you have invoked Elder Poelman’s talk “The Gospel and the Church” on more than one occasion. It appears to me that you like to focus only on the differences between the two while seemingly ignoring the following points, even though you posted some of them just today:

-“Both the gospel of Jesus Christ and the church of Jesus Christ are true and divine”

-“As I attempt to describe and comment upon some distinguishing characteristics of the gospel and of the Church, at the same time noting their essential relationships, it is my prayer that a perspective may be developed which will enhance the influence of both the gospel and the Church in our lives.”

-“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a divine institution administered by the priesthood of God.”

-“The Church has authority to teach correctly the principles and doctrines of the gospel and to administer its essential ordinances.”

Anyway, I see in the talk an admonition to support the church because of these points. To me, there is nothing wrong with calling the church the “Kingdom of God on earth” or the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (according to D&C 1:30). Actually, I believe it is correct to say those things. I know I probably sound like an apologist right now, but I’m just saying what I think.

I don’t get what you mean by saying orthodox members have a problem with the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, I think cwald is saying that many orthodox members don’t want Joseph to have been fully human – that they don’t want to see and admit faults and mistakes and even sins – that they have a problem with “the messenger” being a real man, not a caricature.

Stated that way, I agree with cwald – but I also agree with you that many orthodox members know all about Joseph’s weaknesses, mistakes and sins and don’t have a problem with them or him when it comes to accepting him as a prophet.

Everyone, this is a great example of why over-generalizations get really dicey really fast – and why they are so divisive. I have said this more than once here, but if we who are not as orthodox in our views don’t want to be stereotyped negatively and incorrectly (I’m thinking especially of the apologetics / Midgely thread) we ought not do the same thing to those who are more orthodox.

Kettles and pots and all that jazz.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

cwald, this longer comment is fine; the previous, short one is not. The tone and choice of wording simply doesn’t fit our mission. If we disagree with each other, we need to say so respectfully and with focus on exactly what the disagreement is.

Your first comment was far from that.

Yep

Fixed it.

Probably should delete wayfarer’s post too.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Author]

Posts