- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have had a bit of that also. Shedding off the “I must be living 110% right before the spirit would ever talk to ME!” It now feels to me that many church leaders are not being modest and are saying, “I have the whole truth, listen to me and you will be fine.” That kind of talk makes me more skeptical and less likely to deeply listen to them. I had a similar conversation with a missionary on my full-time mission. There was a missionary who would leer at girls as we drove around in the car. He was also kind of “evil”….missionaries called him “Satan” behind is back. He was unkind to companions in many respects. Once, to me, I was driving the car, and someone cut me off. I simply drove defensively and let it go. He reached across the driver’s seat, hit the horn, and screamed at the driver. Then he looked at me and said “Are you going to be a follower all your life????”…meaning, I wasn’t aggressive enough to even be a leader. And he did it in front of a backseat of missionaries from our zone. He would make comments like “I think you were pretty stupid to do [insert thing I did here]” in front of other people, and was generally a very unkind person. Perhaps that gives you the idea of his character.
I was discussing this missionary with another missionary, on splits. This was because I was the “evil” missionary’s companion for a long period of time and it was hard. I commented how this missionary could behave this way, yet go into a discussion and teach with the Spirit, and commit people to baptism.
I was confused about it as we were taught over and over again that you must be clean to teach with the spirit. The missionary I was with said “I think it’s all up here” [tapping his forehead]. He felt it was a state of mind at the time you are speaking that allows you to transmit the spirit. If you can put yourself into a state of pure motives at the time, you can still be a conduit, notwithstanding what you “became” after the discussion was over — even if that meant returning to your former, sinful state.
I tend to agree with him, as later in life, as a callingless, non-TR holder not keeping all the commandments (such as tithing), I would speak and teach in church from time to time. The room would fill with the spirit and people would approach me afterwards with deep thanks. They would be in tears, some of them. I’d get invitations to teach lessons on teaching with the Spirit, etcetera. I would even come away feeling cleansed myself inside.
The key to these highly successful talks and lessons was the preparation beforehand on two counts. One, was reflecting on the topic until I found “nuggets” in the topic that moved me — that made me feel spiritual emotion. These were things I shared and most of the time, had a profound impact on the audience. The more novel, but still consistent with church doctrine they were, the better. The second variable was putting myself into a state of deep humility before I spoke. Beforehand, I remember preparing myself by saying “heavenly father, help me to rely on thee”, and praying for humility when I spoke. These two preparations seemed to overcome my lack of worthiness during the period I was speaking and transmitted the spirit, moved people, and left people thinking I was more than I am.
Yet in my heart most of the time, I was full of anger and bitterness toward the church, not sure if I believed everything anymore, and willfully disobeying the commandments of tithing, of sustaining leaders, of always accepting callings, and of even attending Church. Yet, I was able to teach with the spirit regularly. Someone said it was a gift, but I don’t know.
But I do know this — I must know that the standards of worthiness God needs in you — to convince people by the power of the Spirit are a lot lower than I think the church leads us to believe.
Could this be how Joseph succeeded in creating such a believing movement, in spite of his lustful character and mistakes that would have derailed most other men claiming to be religious leaders (Jimmy Bakker, Fallwell, for example)? I even saw a documentary in which a woman close to Martin Luther King described him as a “skirt chaser” — yet he was able to move lots of people, in spite of having religious claims as a minister. We are seeing today, that in spite of the new essays that admit some of the most objectionable aspects of our history, people don’t care anymore. Their beliefs are so ingrained, their safety in the “gospel” so important to them, they become impervious to the sin of their leaders. Perhaps this is a contributing factor — after a leader reaches a certain threshold of notoriety and commitment, s/he can make these big mistakes yet emerge unscathed.
I like these questions and responses, and I think it is good to discuss them.
Eternity4me wrote:We are taught that the spirit cannot strive with man except we are worthy. How can a man who is taking other men’s wives, for either lust or power, be considered worthy of revelation, not just for themselves, but for the entire church?
Well, for one, “for either lust or power” is a judgment. It does seem wrong if those are the motivations. But we don’t know for sure the motivations, we only make our judgments on it based on what we see. So it is possible it is for lust or power and that feels wrong. But Joseph claimed it was directed by God. So he would not be worthy to lead the church if he did not obey it. Right?
Quote:How do we know that his version of the bible is truly inspired of God, or just what HE thought it meant when he read it?
This is what is so fascinating to me about the whole process. How do we know? And how do we put so much weight on doctrine coming from scripture when he changes scripture or picks and chooses from what is “translated correctly”. It just is not a scientific process. It comes down to faith. Pretty complicated.
Quote:It has been said by more than a few here that if anyone today did what JS did, they would be excommunicated. How then can we take what JS says as revelation from God?
Because if the prophet says God commands it…it is not grounds for excommunication. We are not supposed to kill, unless God delivers a drunk to your feet and the spirit constrains you to kill. You are supposed to live the laws of the land, unless God tells you there is a higher law. The challenge is that when the authorized prophet says “Thus saith the Lord…” that trumps every other rule that applies to individuals. It is what is scary about putting faith in one man, like JS. And yet, Joseph was also described as a humble servant…there is so much paradox it is fascinating to me about Joseph’s actions and character.
Quote:I am not suggesting that he was not a prophet, but I do question if everything that he gave us is from God. And if it is not (and I expect most of you here to say it isn’t), how do we pick and choose what IS from God. Yes,we all have the right to personal revelation, but you can’t have a religion where each person gets to decide what is gospel principle and what isn’t. There would be no uniformity of doctrine.
That is the key!!! That is the meat of the discussion….what is from God and what is from man, even an inspired man like a prophet. The church is starting to carefully recognize and admit that prophets can be wrong. So how do we know?? Indeed…that is the question to search out. The only answer I can be comfortable with is….I believe it comes from God when it feels right to me and my spirit. I know of no other way. To me…polygamy doesn’t feel right, and I chalk it up to a mistake or a weird thing…but I reject it completely. And am grateful our current church supports me in that, even if my take is different or less “uplifting” on the historical events than others.
Quote:I think this really describes my FC in a nutshell. If JS was breaking the law of chastity, how much of what he taught is actual gospel doctrine, and how much were his own personal belief that furthered and made “acceptable” his behavior.
Yes… and to me…it is why I feel God is OK with my path, that through my crises, I am learning and progressing. I am no longer in the safe bubble of a black and white testimony. I’ve grown up … and its time to forge a more mature testimony… by tackling these hard things. My current testimony is Joseph was a prophet of God and God delivered truth to him. Sometimes. And sometimes Joseph did his best on his own…and got it wrong. And I no longer can have blind faith in a prophet, because God doesn’t want me to. But in the end…the church is good for my family in some ways…and I choose to allow myself to not believe the other stuff that makes no sense to me. It is the gift that Joseph gave me by being a faulty mortal human, like me.
Quote:Oh, and why does Emma get such a bad rap? How would you feel if the love of your life was sleeping/marrying around behind your back and all you wanted was your own family back??
Holy snap…I know, right? I basically would have sought divorce. It is unacceptable to me. Relationships are built on trust and commitment. From my view…I don’t know how Emma did it.
SilentDawning wrote:We are seeing today, that in spite of the new essays that admit some of the most objectionable aspects of our history, people don’t care anymore. Their beliefs are so ingrained, their safety in the “gospel” so important to them, they become impervious to the sin of their leaders. Perhaps this is a contributing factor — after a leader reaches a certain threshold of notoriety and commitment, s/he can make these big mistakes yet emerge unscathed.
I’d disagree with that. I think people in the church are smarter than that. There is an element of trust that gets built up that allows some people to look beyond mistakes, or even not believe something that goes against their perceived image of their beloved leader, but there is a limit. We saw outside of church how leaders like President Clinton got away with things because they can weasel out of things, but people know what he did and what that meant about his character, and he still did get impeached.Perhaps the distinction is how you are using the word “sin”. (Ok…this is sounding like Pres Clinton now
:wtf: ). But … Paul H Dunn didn’t get away with his lies. I can’t imagine a prophet committing sin and emerging unscathed. The trick is defining what sins were made, and if they are truly proven and not rumors. We’re looking back on Joseph, and it is very hard to tell what’s going on in his situation. But I believe the polyandry was a big part of his death, along with other mistakes he made with the printint press, so it wasn’t like he got away scott-free on it. People in and out of the church had a problem with Joseph (he really is spoken of for good and evil throughout the world as prophesied), and I don’t think people today would give TSM a free pass either. There are some who are devote followers blinded to any reason, but I don’t think those are close to the majority in the church.I don’t really know of sins that prophets have committed. Joseph’s actions are unacceptable to me…but I don’t know if they are sins if God commanded it as he claimed.
Quote:For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Everything else is degrees. Those degrees can be important, but God only has sinners with whom to work. I’m nowhere close to Joseph’s extremes – on either end. It’s good to believe that my more middle-ground muddling is no different, in fundamental nature, than his wildly swinging pendulum. If God can work with such swings, they certainly can work with my more moderate swings.
Also, just to say it again, major movements are initiated by radical revolutionaries – and radical revolutionaries always, without exception, are complicated mixtures of good and bad. To do what Joseph did, he couldn’t have been the pure saint or pure sinner each extreme paints him to be. Even Jesus, of Nazareth, when viewed as objectively and analytically as possible, was much more complicated than most believers are able to see – and the things that would tend to induce doubt or concern have been glossed over / white-washed to the point of near elimination (both in the Biblical records and in the apologetics throughout the subsequent centuries).
Heber13 wrote:We saw outside of church how leaders like President Clinton got away with things because they can weasel out of things, but people know what he did and what that meant about his character, and he still did get impeached.
Ken Starr :: Bill Clinton
Sylvester Smith :: Joseph Smith
Heber13 wrote:
Eternity4me wrote:Quote:I am not suggesting that he was not a prophet, but I do question if everything that he gave us is from God. And if it is not (and I expect most of you here to say it isn’t), how do we pick and choose what IS from God. Yes,we all have the right to personal revelation, but you can’t have a religion where each person gets to decide what is gospel principle and what isn’t. There would be no uniformity of doctrine.
That is the key!!! That is the meat of the discussion….what is from God and what is from man, even an inspired man like a prophet. The church is starting to carefully recognize and admit that prophets can be wrong. So how do we know?? Indeed…that is the question to search out. The only answer I can be comfortable with is….I believe it comes from God when it feels right to me and my spirit. I know of no other way. To me…polygamy doesn’t feel right, and I chalk it up to a mistake or a weird thing…but I reject it completely.And am grateful our current church supports me in that, even if my take is different or less “uplifting” on the historical events than others. Quote:Hi, Heber – I agree that this is the meat of the discussion. Do you really feel supported by the current church in your opinion? I don’t, so I’m wondering where to get some of what you have.
Heber13 wrote:[
I’d disagree with that. I think people in the church are smarter than that.
I’ve shared my thoughts with a couple people now. Including my wife…they come out with statements like “I don’t care about it”. “It’s not for me to judge”. “None of that matters to me now”. They don’t want to hear it, or to consider it. I am not saying that are unintelligent, but something is preventing them from giving serious consideration to our history. My intent is not to make them delve any deeper than they want to — but I do observe a kind of “head in the sand” mentality that makes them not want to consider anything critical or objective about our history. They would rather shut it out.
And I wonder if during JS’s time, if people became so invested in the religion, found his theology gave answers, saw so many other people buy into the culture, that it was simply too threatening to seriously consider, or even hold JS accountable for his mistakes.
Quote:There is an element of trust that gets built up that allows some people to look beyond mistakes, or even not believe something that goes against their perceived image of their beloved leader…
This is exactly what I am saying. People have given their trust, they have felt peace in the doctrine, they feel they have a structure in their lives, a guide to follow — they don’t want to upset it. The premise — that prophets can’t be prophets if they engage in repeated adultery (however, disguised) — is too threatening for them, so they dont’ want to consider it.
Quote:…but there is a limit. We saw outside of church how leaders like President Clinton got away with things because they can weasel out of things, but people know what he did and what that meant about his character, and he still did get impeached.
He did. It seems the limit for Joseph Smith was far beyond the limit for Clinton, which seems odd to me when much of JS’s later doctrine focused on purity as a prerequisite for receiving revelation.
Quote:I don’t really know of sins that prophets have committed. Joseph’s actions are unacceptable to me…but I don’t know if they are sins if God commanded it as he claimed.
I don’t know either, but my heart tells me JS used his role as prophet for personal convenience at times. For me, the question burning in my mind is “Can someone with repeated adulteries, and who uses their position to create cover-up doctrine, be a valid prophet? And can I, with conscience, dedicate my time and money to the organization he founded as a result?”.
That is the question I am asking right now. One one hand, I know that if I, as a returned missionary, endowed member, former leader in the stake and ward, temple married person with over 30 years of experience in the church, go into my bishop and confess that I had sex with multiple women, and come out as still authorized to give priesthood blessings, do home teaching, much less receive revelation for others in a church-related stewardship? The answer is a flat no.
So I find it hard to hold the prophet that founded all this to a lower standard than I am held to right now.
SilentDawning wrote:I’ve shared my thoughts with a couple people now. Including my wife…they come out with statements like “I don’t care about it”. “It’s not for me to judge”. “None of that matters to me now”. They don’t want to hear it, or to consider it. I am not saying that are unintelligent, but something is preventing them from giving serious consideration to our history. My intent is not to make them delve any deeper than they want to — but I do observe a kind of “head in the sand” mentality that makes them not want to consider anything critical or objective about our history. They would rather shut it out.
If I watch a historical movie with my wife she does not have the historical background and asks (what I feel to be) ignorant questions over and over. She really is lost about the history of our country (even big and relatively recent stuff like WWII). OTOH, When my wife is telling me a story about something that happened at church she can tell me the back story of everyone involved and how they relate to everyone else. I am just as tone deaf to these relational intricacies. Who is related through marriage to who and what happened to so and so back when they were a teenager is irrelevant to me.
But just as my understanding of U.S. history helps me put historical movies into context – her understanding of the ward’s inter-relatedness and backstory helps her to put the goings on into context.
I try to remember these differences in the realm of what people find important in the realm of religion as well.
Quote:
I’ve shared my thoughts with a couple people now. Including my wife…they come out with statements like “I don’t care about it”. “It’s not for me to judge”. “None of that matters to me now”. They don’t want to hear it, or to consider it. I am not saying that are unintelligent, but something is preventing them from giving serious consideration to our historySilent – I don’t see it as heads in the sand. None of us on this forum got here because of a single issue, it takes multiple issues to be willing to reconsider a deeply held opinion on anything, including religion. It is also possible it really doesn’t matter to them, as I wrote earlier Richard Bushman knows all the details and more, he barely delved into polygamy in RSR, but it doesn’t bother him.
Many of our gripes with the church and leaders are multi-layer, not single issue. They are also expectation driven, everyone has different expectations. When our desires or expectations are met we don’t need anything else. You probably never think twice about the produce you buy at the store. You don’t think how it got there, who grew it, what their age was or working conditions, you don’t wonder if your orange was picked by a migrant worker or starving kid. All you know is – you need an orange. You pick it up, maybe squeeze it, stick in a bag. Done. Was your head in the sand? I don’t think so. But other people do worry about that. Its a big deal to them. I think the same is true with the church members, whether they are family or not.
SilentDawning wrote:I’ve shared my thoughts with a couple people now. Including my wife…they come out with statements like “I don’t care about it”. “It’s not for me to judge”. “None of that matters to me now”. They don’t want to hear it, or to consider it. I am not saying that are unintelligent, but something is preventing them from giving serious consideration to our history. My intent is not to make them delve any deeper than they want to — but I do observe a kind of “head in the sand” mentality that makes them not want to consider anything critical or objective about our history. They would rather shut it out.
Do you believe, that if in the Salt Lake Tribune tomorrow, the headline reads, “Thomas S Monson caught having an affair with young church employees” that those you talk to will just brush it off and shut it out?? Because it sounds like you are saying the prophet can get away with sins and people will support him anyway. Am I hearing you correctly, SD?SilentDawning wrote:One one hand, I know that if I, as a returned missionary, endowed member, former leader in the stake and ward, temple married person with over 30 years of experience in the church, go into my bishop and confess that I had sex with multiple women, and come out as still authorized to give priesthood blessings, do home teaching, much less receive revelation for others in a church-related stewardship? The answer is a flat no.
Do you remember the story of the mission president who got sister missionaries to sleep with him as a polygamous situation? I can’t remember the details or the source now, just a story about it. And that he was disciplined for it. My point is, in our church today…it is defined on what these sins are…and there would be discipline, not allowing leaders and especially the prophet to get away with sins. I can’t see the church doing that without losing incredible amounts of credibility.
It seems that to you what Joseph Smith did was adulterous and sinful. I can understand that…I really can. But I think that it is not so clear…which is why it is still a topic of consternation even today. But it is not without a doubt a “sin” what Joseph did (if he married them). It is just something I don’t understand and abhor. And I don’t feel I have my head in the sand. I just see it differently, and think there are other valid ways to look at it…including your view…it’s totally valid. But it is debatable.
Quote:Do you believe, that if in the Salt Lake Tribune tomorrow, the headline reads, “Thomas S Monson caught having an affair with young church employees” that those you talk to will just brush it off and shut it out?? Because it sounds like you are saying the prophet can get away with sins and people will support him anyway. Am I hearing you correctly, SD?
I believe there will be a certain number of people who will rationalize it. Yes. A certain number will then cite the mistakes of Moses that shut him out of the promised land, while still retaining his role as prophet.
But a lot of people would probably NOT stick their head in the sand, and would leave the church. It would be too close to home, and the idea that prophets can never lead the church astray, would be in question.
And my question is, then why don’t they feel that way about JS’s indiscretions? I mean, RsR makes it pretty clear that even JS didn’t deny a sexual relationship with Fannie Alger because he had married her (not legally) but in a religious ceremony.
Quote:Do you remember the story of the mission president who got sister missionaries to sleep with him as a polygamous situation? I can’t remember the details or the source now, just a story about it. And that he was disciplined for it. My point is, in our church today…it is defined on what these sins are…and there would be discipline, not allowing leaders and especially the prophet to get away with sins. I can’t see the church doing that without losing incredible amounts of credibility.
I agree — that’s why I have such a hard time understanding how people can know about JS’s indiscretions, and not have it at least cause a ripple in their testimony. Not that I WANT it to, but I find it hard to understand.
Quote:It seems that to you what Joseph Smith did was adulterous and sinful. I can understand that…I really can. But I think that it is not so clear…which is why it is still a topic of consternation even today. But it is not without a doubt a “sin” what Joseph did (if he married them). It is just something I don’t understand and abhor. And I don’t feel I have my head in the sand. I just see it differently, and think there are other valid ways to look at it…including your view…it’s totally valid. But it is debatable.
I’m not sure what there is “not to understand” about it. That’s not a challenge, just a question. If we agree that he did have sex with teenagers and multiple women, some married, where is the lack of clarity in it? That it may have been commanded? That an angel really did threaten to kill him if he didn’t do it? I guess I don’t believe those last two. I honestly believe the plural marriage thing was spawned by an indiscretion with the attractive and charismatic Fanny Alger. He saw he could get away with it on religious grounds, and spawned one of the biggest blights on our history that other good men perpetuated.
I don’t know if you can compare how people would react to the hypothetical example of President Monson getting caught having affairs to what Joseph Smith did. If Pres. Monson got nailed on something like that, then people would absolutely take notice. And, like SD said, there would be a variety of reactions. Some would accept it, some would deny it, some would leave the church, etc. However, I think a more fitting example would be, what if it was discovered that Pres. Monson had married multiple women in a Middle Eastern country (where it would be legal to do so), and he said that he had received revelation to bring back polygamy, but only where it is legal and culturally accepted. If that happened, I think there would be a lot more people who would choose to simply go along with it, because he’s the prophet and nobody wants to believe that he would knowing do something wrong. Also, when we talk about people in Joseph Smith’s time accepting it when they found out about it, you have to consider what many of these people had gone through. The more a person invests in something, the harder it is for them to leave that thing behind. Whether somebody invests their time, money, emotions, or whatever else, when they make that commitment, they are strengthening what they feel. Look at what Mormons are asked to invest into our faith: 2 years for a mission, 10% of your income + extra for fast offerings, countless hours away from family to serve in various callings, dedicating daily time to reading LDS scripture, 3 hours in church every week, etc. We are expected to invest A LOT! So, when we think about leaving, we consider everything we’ve put into supporting this church during our lifetime and it feels like we’d be traitors for leaving. We think of the people we’ve served, the people we’ve taught, the people who have served us, our families, our LDS friends. The more we’ve invested into the church, the more motivated we are to look for reasons to make excuses for folks like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Now, think about what the people of his time invested. Take the list of things I already mentioned, and then consider that they could be called on multiple missions, they left their homes to relocate to live is Kirtland, Nauvoo, Salt Lake City, many came from Europe and didn’t have the money to go back even if they wanted to, they invested their money in the church’s bank (and ended up losing most or all of it), many lost children to disease or exposure. These people literally gave everything they had! So how hard would it be for them to emotionally turn their backs on all of that after learning about Joseph’s polygamy? Making excuses for the the ‘prophet’ that they had come halfway across the world to follow might have been easier than leaving. After leaving everything they knew and starting knew lives with the saints, this was now all they had left. There are many people in the church who feel that way today. When your entire family and all of your friends are members of the church, and that’s what your life revolves around, it’s just easier to go along with it. It’s not necessarily burying your head in the sand. I don’t think people purposely ignore what’s out there. It’s just easier to shrug it off as ‘anti-mormon’ stuff without even thinking about it. I know that’s what I did for years. If all of these essays had been published before my FC, I would have said, “See, the church doesn’t have anything to hide,” and I probably never even would have read them before reaching that conclusion. They came from the bretheren and that’s all I would have needed to know.
Ignorance is bliss. And some people will go to great lengths to remain ignorant. Now, my personal belief is that Joseph duped a lot of people, and that he knew exactly what he was doing. But, that’s only my opinion. I know that a lot of people would say that he was a prophet, who just made a bunch of mistakes, and that’s okay too. We all have our own point-of-view, and that’s what makes the world go around.
SD wrote:And my question is, then why don’t they feel that way about JS’s indiscretions?
My opinion, because people don’t see it the way that you are portraying it. I understand it is clear cut to you. I can’t say you’re wrong. It is just not the only way to view the facts as we have them, or to view Joseph and what he was trying to do. But I get it…there are different ways to view it. Your view is valid. Just not the only view.
Holy Cow wrote:I think a more fitting example would be, what if it was discovered that Pres. Monson had married multiple women in a Middle Eastern country (where it would be legal to do so), and he said that he had received revelation to bring back polygamy, but only where it is legal and culturally accepted.
That might be a better example, I agree. So in that example, is it a “sin” that requires discipline, or is it just an icky thing we don’t like, maybe can’t accept and follow? Because that is more to the point…I feel like SD is saying people accept Joseph’s sins and transgressions (if I heard him right), whereas at the time, Joseph thought he found a loophole and it wasn’t sin, but it was marriage of a higher law. There is a difference. Now…the icky part…ya…that part I can’t get over and don’t like it. But neither did Oliver Cowdery, the Laws, and many others.
Don’t get me wrong…Joseph’s polygamy is one of the things that I hate more that almost anything else about our history. I just think it should be represented fairly. I don’t think it is necessarily a “sin”. And that changes it somewhat to me.
The events having taken place almost 200 years ago, mostly under the cloak of secrecy, and well before the information age got rolling helps create all kinds of space for us to come up with our own interpretations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.