- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I deal with it through agnosticism. Someone said “History is a pack of lies, agreed upon” (Napoleon said that). In this case, there isn’t even agreement about some of JS’s key behaviors as a prophet. So I don’t try to reconcile them. I did have testimony building experiences when younger, although those experiences are battered and bruised. So, I choose to have tremendous faith in my own ignorance, lack of judgment, and personalization of church experiences.
I have also dealt with it by lessening my commitment to the church as a whole. I still go, still support family, still have a calling, but it’s not nearly at the same level I did when I was a full believer.
These two things — agnosticism about the church’s claims, and lessening my overall effort directed at the church makes it easy to listen to objectionable material about JS. It really doesn’t bother me unless I am asked to “give till it hurts” for the church. Then it matters. Fortunately, we live in a time when you be non-committal without consequences. Other than no temple recommend…and I’m cool with that.
I like the focus being on Jesus Christ (whose ideas I can get behind) and not Joseph Smith (who sometimes seems to me as good-intentioned but off the mark). I suggest reading two books: Rough Stone Rolling and In Sacred Loneliness. Rough Stone Rolling is written from a faith-based perspective but doesn’t shy away from some of the challenging topics. In Sacred Loneliness (about Joseph Smith’s wives), demonstrated to me that my ideas about polygamy in Joseph Smith’s time needed some adjusting. It’s still a challenging topic, though. But I felt “better armed” from reading these two books.
On a personal level (and I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m cheating) but I kind of compartmentalize all that stuff and focus on the here and now of the Church.
But make no mistake, it’s a tough trod to get through!
Quote:-I had NO idea Joseph Smith was a polygamist until I read the church essay. Call me ignorant, but this 20-something year old, very active, seminary grad, BYU grad thought that Joseph Smith was monogamous. And not only was he polygamist but he was sealed to very young girls and women who already had husbands. Even if those relationships weren’t “sexual”…. why?! If women were already sealed to their husbands, they didn’t need another sealing. A 14 year old girl has her whole life to find a husband and be sealed.
I agree that it’s tough to deal with the real JS rather than the paragon of virtue presented in church manuals. I do think he often misunderstood what he was doing, he justified his own wrong actions, and he tried to get away with things he shouldn’t have. I consider Fanny Alger to have been an affair. I also consider polygamy in all forms (worse under BY) to be repugnant. In JS’s case, my greatest objection is 1) Emma didn’t agree to it, and 2) some of the women were too young to be throwing their lives away like that (as you point out).
Quote:-I knew there were different accounts of the first vision, but I didn’t realize that the earliest accounts didn’t even mention both Heavenly Father and Jesus appearing to him. The LDS essay explains that when you tell the same story to different people or at different times, certain aspects of the story are emphasized and certain details can be left out. But that seems like kind of a huge detail to leave out… I’m just not satisfied with the essay’s justifications.
This one bothers me less because the reason we are so hung up on the FV is the way the church co-opted it for our own missionary efforts. That wasn’t even during JS’s lifetime. Missionaries in his day were selling the BOM to interested people. The FV came about later as a central story to the restoration, so when JS captured it in 1838 (the version we all know so well), it was 18 years after the events, and he already knew “how the story ended.” We can all tell stories in many different ways depending on the point we are trying to make. In his early accounts, he was trying to show that he had been forgiven of his sins. Personally, I think our biggest issue with all these historical stories is that history almost never matches the narrative we create.
Quote:-How our temple ceremony is very similar to the free mason’s rituals and Joseph Smith just happened to become a free mason right before introducing the endowment.
I’ve always liked Brian’s view of this one (he’s the original admin here). He says JS just used what he had at hand, which was masonry, and then altered it to create a ritual that got the points across that God was trying to help him convey. There are similarities, obviously, handshakes, tokens, etc., but the underlying story is not the same, and the covenants are different. It deviates in some very important ways. Technically masonry is non-religious. But, aside from that, it’s impossible to escape the fact that JS and most masons of his day did in reality believe that masonry was thousands of years old (which most people today agree is not remotely true). I think we have to take things like signs and tokens as symbolic of covenants made, not as literal salvation-triggers (except in that covenants lead to salvation).
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I’ve always liked Brian’s view of this one (he’s the original admin here). He says JS just used what he had at hand, which was masonry, and then altered it to create a ritual that got the points across that God was trying to help him convey. There are similarities, obviously, handshakes, tokens, etc., but the underlying story is not the same, and the covenants are different. It deviates in some very important ways. Technically masonry is non-religious. But, aside from that, it’s impossible to escape the fact that JS and most masons of his day did in reality believe that masonry was thousands of years old (which most people today agree is not remotely true). I think we have to take things like signs and tokens as symbolic of covenants made, not as literal salvation-triggers (except in that covenants led to salvation).What concerns me is that he used masonry in ways that relied on it’s being factual when it is not. And it was used as a “salvation-trigger” in it’s claim that the signs and tokens were necessary get past the sentinels to return to the Father. And as a master mason I can tell you that the similarities are not insignificant even with the five points of fellowship and penalties taken out.
Quote:What concerns me is that he used masonry in ways that relied on it’s being factual when it is not.
He also believed the second coming was imminent and took the KJV literally in areas where it clearly isn’t.
Quote:And it was used as a “salvation-trigger” in it’s claim that the signs and tokens were necessary get past the sentinels to return to the Father.
Garments were also viewed as a literal physical protection, but that has been repurposed to be more of a spiritual protection. People in JS’s day were very literal about things. People in our day are not.
Quote:And as a master mason I can tell you that the similarities are not insignificant even with the five points of fellowship and penalties taken out.
Yes, I’m aware. My maternal uncles were masons and I’ve read up on the ceremony. The signs, tokens, etc. are obviously copied. The story (Garden of Eden vs. Hiram Abiff) is a departure, and doing the covenants vs. achieving different masonic levels is also not the same. It’s definitely more than 50% masonry, but with a religious twist.
Your feelings are not uncommon. You would be surprised. Many members honestly have mixed feelings regarding the man. However, a very common thing that I was told about this issue is that at the end of the day Joseph Smith is simply just a man, and was chosen to restore this church back to the earth. That is really all. What is important is your relationship with Christ, and nothing else should matter. But, as I have previously stated, your feelings are common and normal. I would recommend reaching out to your bishop or even your stake president. They will happily help you through this. It is also a good idea to maybe consult a close friend, or family member who is also a member of the church. Hope all is well!
Just to say it: Leadership roulette is real. The huge majority of Bishops and Stake Preisdents are good people who truly care – but a much smaller percentage will understand this struggle, and some actually will be concerned enough to try to “correct” members in inaccurate and even damaging ways.
I love and respect most church leaders, but talking with them about this particular issue often can be difficult, frustrating, and, in some cases, even harmful. Just be careful and be sure you have leaders who will understand and not try to fix you – or even call you to repentance, especially if you still want to attend the temple.
Old Timer wrote:
Just to say it:Leadership roulette is real. The huge majority of Bishops and Stake Presidents are good people who truly care – but a much smaller percentage will understand this struggle, and some actually will be concerned enough to try to “correct” members in inaccurate and even damaging ways.
I love and respect most church leaders, but talking with them about this particular issue often can be difficult, frustrating, and, in some cases, even harmful. Just be careful and be sure you have leaders who will understand and not try to fix you – or even call you to repentance, especially if you still want to attend the temple.
:thumbup: I had the same thought. Some bishops/SPs might be very helpful and some even struggle with these things themselves. Other see people who question/doubt as apostates or potential apostates. As Forrest Gump said, “you never know what you’re gonna git.” I have heard bishops in my stake mention people struggling with JS and other stuff, but I have never heard one who really knows what to say to people. On the positive side, they don’t tend to yank TRs and tend to be tolerant of the fact that some people struggle.
I need to catch up on reading but here are some thoughts. Perhaps this has been covered. Keep in mind, I’m trying to look at things differently than I have in recent years so this might be rough around the edges. It appears as though Joseph read and studied material from far and wide and incorporated it into his religion. It appears as though I’ve settled on studying material from far and wide and incorporating it into my religion. Are we really all that different (in that respect only)?
For example, if I believe that JS borrowed from the masons to come up with the endowment I also recognize that I’m borrowing from Mormonism, Buddhism, and any manner of -isms to form my beliefs. Of course the main difference is that I don’t feel called to found a church or claim I have the correct views, but the actual borrowing is similar.
Here’s another oddity that crossed my mind. Let’s say you believe that the BoM wasn’t based on actual history and was a work of fiction that was very much a product of American protestant culture in the early 19th century. I find it fascinating how (and this is only my opinion… current opinion at that) the BoM has many anti-masonic themes but JS would later go on to embrace the masons and incorporate elements of their tradition into the church. Maybe there’s a lesson in there about always keeping your mind open and welcoming change, even for opinions that appear to be diametrically opposed. I oversimplify, a decade or more can bring about sweeping changes in attitude and sentiment, but there’s a lesson for being open and changing.
When we were all-in and believing members of the Church, we saw only the good. Many who suffer a faith crisis flip the coin to the other side and see only the bad. In seeing only the extreme, they are doing the same thing they did before. The challenge to people like us can be to try to see both the good and the bad in combination; realize that the over-the-top stories on either side are probably not very accurate and to try to find an inner biography we can tell to ourselves that seems reasonable. There are many problems with JS. You mentioned polygamy, the FV variant telling, and the masons. I can tell you that my experience was similar. I knew JS was married to more than just Emma, but didn’t realize the extent of if it. I had heard that there were similarities with the Masons, but didn’t realize the extent of that. Those two issues were among my top handful of items that sent me into a tailspin.
But let me take the FV accounts as an alternate universe perspective. I knew as a faithful member that there were differing accounts. In fact, I used the FV accounts as published in the Ensign in the 1980’s as a source for a Gospel Doctrine lesson I put together in the early 90’s. But since I was an all-in member, I didn’t see the
differences… I saw the commonalities. Because of this experience, and to this day, I’ve never been bothered by the differing FV accounts. I once said here that when I was a missionary, there was an event that happened. It is my single most fond memory of the mission. It was a defining, life-changing moment for me. As the mission gets farther behind me and my memories continue to fade, this one event still stands as the one thing I can never forget. So, a while ago, I looked back in my journal to see what I said about it at the time. I was shocked to find that I made NO mention of it. If someone who has heard me tell the story later went back and found my journal, they would doubt my truthfulness, because I didn’t tell it in my journal the way I told it to them later. But there were other issues I have or have had with JS.
– The Kinderhook Plates.
– The Kirtland Saftey Society.
– The way he would settle disputes with “Thus saith the Lord”.
– Deceiptfulness. There’s a famous story, which, BTW, they will tell you at the Smith Farm in Palmyra, about how JS and his family members hid the box containing the Gold Plates under the floorboards of the barn. That night, though, antagonists ransacked the barn, tore up the floorboards, found the box and tossed it, empty, out into the yard. When this was discovered in the morning, JS said not to worry, that after everyone had gone to bed, he had gone back out to the barn, pulled up the floorboards, took the plates out of the box and hid them in the hayloft of the barn. This whole thing just doesn’t ring true to me, especially since I no longer believe in the existence of the Gold Plates. If there were no Gold Plates, then there was certainly a lot of ruse around their existence perpetrated by JS.
– One aspect that is particularly alarming is how many close associates turned against him. William Law is a haunting example. He was in the inner circle, but never bought into polygamy and became a vocal opponent; publishing the Nauvoo Expositor.
With all that dirt, though, there are some really important aspects to keep in mind when trying to find a balancing point.
– One is that in the case of William Law, he tried to start a sort of reformation within the Church, believing it to be a divine institution whose leader had lost it. Amazingly, this was the same view and approach that was held by David Whitmer, who was out of the Church before William Law came in. There was something there that made people love what JS had built, even if they hated JS.
– For each defector who reviled JS, there were many more who remained totally loyal to JS for the rest of their lives and who adored him.
– JS accomplished amazing things. The Church grew rapidly. There were settlements everywhere. I bought a book a few years back, called “Mapping Mormonism”. I recommend it for those interested in the history of the Church. It was enlightening to see how JS built a Kingdom of God on the earth. He was highly successful; He built an organization with central government but distributed operations across a large number of settlements in multiple regions.
– He was a kid. In our present era when young men want to stay at home and delay adulthood as long as possible, I think it’s hard to imagine the kind of energy JS had. He completed the BofM manuscript and contracted the printer at the age of 23. At 24 he organized the Church and that same year began the monstrous undertaking of his translation of the Bible. At 25, he established the community of Zion and dedicated the Temple Site, and then relocated his followers from New York to either Kirtland or Jackson County.
– JS suffered and eventually died for the cause he established.
FWIW, my own take is that JS believed he was a prophet. I think he felt that God spoke through him, and because of that, if JS thought it, it must be from God. This would set up an impossible-to-live-with ego that some would find arrogant and self-serving and others would find Godly and righteous.
willb1993 wrote:a very common thing that I was told about this issue is that at the end of the day Joseph Smith is simply just a man, and was chosen to restore this church back to the earth. That is really all. What is important is your relationship with Christ, and nothing else should matter.
Good advice
:thumbup: Keep things prioritized, while you peel back the onion on things you wish to shed in your beliefs…while trying to get to the core of what you have faith in that helps your soul and your family.
Quote:Heber wrto while you peel back the onion on things you wish to shed in your beliefs.
Onion can be very tasty and useful when you know the tips for doing both.
Many of you talk about JS being imperfect and making mistakes but still a prophet. Problem I have is that if any of us had made those same mistakes we would be excommunicated. Scriptures talk about qualifications of a bishop or leader and JS would not qualify. Soo… as much good as he did, that is a problem for me. bridget_night wrote:
Many of you talk about JS being imperfect and making mistakes but still a prophet. Problem I have is that if any of us had made those same mistakes we would be excommunicated. Scriptures talk about qualifications of a bishop or leader and JS would not qualify. Soo… as much good as he did, that is a problem for me.
Today we would be excommunicated. Not sure that was the case then. Excommunication seems like it was much more arbitrary then. And I think there were some who did think JS should have been excommunicated – Oliver Cowdery might have thought so at one point.
Bridget – William Laws saw Joseph as a fallen prophet who needed to confess a sin before the church. It’s been 184 years. Expectations are much different.
Even today’s excommunication standards have changed from 30 years ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.