- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Plus… doesn’t founding a religious movement have it’s privileges? Meaning if you were to start your own religion something would have to go seriously wrong for you to be excommunicated. :angel: Thank you everyone for all of the thoughtful and warm responses! Every single response gave me something to think about, and I’m planning on going back and reading everything in more detail and taking notes. I loved these thoughts:
-We can look at JS through 2 extremities. A few years ago, I had the viewpoint that is very common in the church where he is on a pedestal and then there’s obviously those people that view him as a complete fraud. I think I need to strip down my old views, without falling to the other extremity and just view him as he was. A man who made mistakes, but who God used to restore our church. I think I can do that. The foundation of my faith is definitely on Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, so I need to focus on that and not worry so much about JS.
-Joseph Smith didn’t create the view I had of his first vision. The church later emphasized the D&C account, not him. That isn’t his fault, so I shouldn’t “blame” him. I still feel deceived that I didn’t realize how different the first account is compared to the one I’ve always been taught, but that’s obviously a problem I have with the church and their deceitfulness. I also liked how someone said they like to look at the similarities between the accounts and focus on that. I like that perspective.
-Masonry: I think where I’m at with this is that everything he took from the Mason’s rituals isn’t necessary to our salvation or even necessary for the ordinances/covenants. If I look at it through this view, it doesn’t bother me as much that certain aspects are taken from the Masons. If those aspects aren’t necessary anyway, then who cares where he got that idea from. I can focus on the covenants instead.
It feels so good to communicate with other people like me… I oftentimes feel so alone and like I don’t really belong with the rest of my faithful friends/family members. None of them know the stuff I know, so it is easy for them to be “all in.” I also don’t fit in with people who are no longer members, because they obviously know the stuff I know but they have chosen to leave. I don’t want that.
I currently don’t have a temple recommend (mostly because I’m not willing to pay 10% tithing, especially as I am in the midst of my faith crisis) but I was also worried about how I could answer the TR question about Joseph Smith. I feel much better about that aspect of the interview now.
You’re all the best. Thank you, thank you!
Thanks for that great response! All good thoughts. Thanks for sharing. Also… you may have see the other thread where the TR questions are pinned to the top of the “History and Doctrine Discussions” section of the forum.
If you haven’t browsed those…check it out (
hereOf interesting note is that nowhere in the TR interview do they make you reconcile Joseph Smith. As you said:
ConfusedMolly wrote:
The foundation of my faith is definitely on Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, so I need to focus on that and not worry so much about JS.
I think you are on safe ground with this thought! They have a whole “Joseph Smith Papers” project and army of scholars to look at Joseph Smith…it is very complex…not something each of us have to reconcile. We just need to have faith in the restoration. At a 30,000 foot level… I am comfortable with that.
DarkJedi and mom3 both bring up the technically true point that excommunication standards have changed. But… 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.
I really don’t think BN’s problem is changing standards, here. I might be reading too much into it, so be warned that my response might mostly have to do with my own problem with Joseph Smith.
One of the stories I’ve read from people who have left the Church that really stuck with me was from a young man who couldn’t stop masturbating. His shelf crashed soon after listening to Elder Andersen’s talk “Faith Is Not By Chance, But By Choice.” The quote that bothered him the most was “give Brother Joseph a break.” He couldn’t shake the thought, “When do
Iget a break?” I think this sticks with me because it so starkly illustrates the double standard we apply. Joseph gets a break, but the rest of us don’t. Joseph is assumed to be able to tap into the very thoughts of God no matter what he’s done, but we have to be absolutely pure to even qualify for a subtle feeling. Joseph can apparently heal the sick even while being unfaithful to his wife and lying to all of Nauvoo, but we have to be cleansed every whit from our iniquity.
We believe that God is no respecter of persons, so shouldn’t we have the same standards for access to the powers of heaven as Joseph Smith? It seems a just God would set things up that way. But as far as I can tell, most active members live more righteously than Joseph, but experience access that, compared to Joseph’s reported access, is positively feeble.
I can think of three explanations. The first is that Joseph’s access to the powers of heaven has been absurdly overclaimed. The second is that the worthiness necessary for such access has been absurdly overclaimed. The third explanation is a mix of the previous two.
Frankly, for someone who wants to believe, all of those explanations suck in some way.
Another explanation is that access to the powers of heaven doesn’t stay constant over time. This explanation is the most consistent with members’ lived experience, but is preached strenuously against in the Book of Mormon. Not only that, but it blames the person who wants a miracle for not having enough faith, so it sucks, too.
Basically, every explanation that accounts for Joseph Smith’s behavior, our doctrine, and our lived experience, well, sucks.
Reuben wrote:
DarkJedi and mom3 both bring up the technically true point that excommunication standards have changed. But…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.
I really don’t think BN’s problem is changing standards, here. I might be reading too much into it, so be warned that my response might mostly have to do with my own problem with Joseph Smith.
One of the stories I’ve read from people who have left the Church that really stuck with me was from a young man who couldn’t stop masturbating. His shelf crashed soon after listening to Elder Andersen’s talk “Faith Is Not By Chance, But By Choice.” The quote that bothered him the most was “give Brother Joseph a break.” He couldn’t shake the thought, “When do
Iget a break?” I think this sticks with me because it so starkly illustrates the double standard we apply. Joseph gets a break, but the rest of us don’t. Joseph is assumed to be able to tap into the very thoughts of God no matter what he’s done, but we have to be absolutely pure to even qualify for a subtle feeling. Joseph can apparently heal the sick even while being unfaithful to his wife and lying to all of Nauvoo, but we have to be cleansed every whit from our iniquity.
We believe that God is no respecter of persons, so shouldn’t we have the same standards for access to the powers of heaven as Joseph Smith? It seems a just God would set things up that way. But as far as I can tell, most active members live more righteously than Joseph, but experience access that, compared to Joseph’s reported access, is positively feeble.
I can think of three explanations. The first is that Joseph’s access to the powers of heaven has been absurdly overclaimed. The second is that the worthiness necessary for such access has been absurdly overclaimed. The third explanation is a mix of the previous two.
Frankly, for someone who wants to believe, all of those explanations suck in some way.
Another explanation is that access to the powers of heaven doesn’t stay constant over time. This explanation is the most consistent with members’ lived experience, but is preached strenuously against in the Book of Mormon. Not only that, but it blames the person who wants a miracle for not having enough faith, so it sucks, too.
Basically, every explanation that accounts for Joseph Smith’s behavior, our doctrine, and our lived experience, well, sucks.
I so appreciate this post Reuben. Thank you. Bridget
This is not to condone Joseph’s behavior, but, as I said in my earlier comment, look at the “prophets” and charismatic, visionary leaders throughout history. Moses murdered a man, which is why he fled Egypt in the first place. Abraham tried to kill his covenant son. Noah got passed out drunk and was raped by his daughter. David had a great general killed in order to marry his wife. Jesus ticked off the religious and political leaders and got killed for it. John’s visions read like he was on hallucinogenics. Saul/Paul oversaw the killing of Stephen and other early Christians. Nephi killed a drunk guy. Captain Moroni verbally ripped apart and threatened one of his most loyal, stalwart supporters (Pahoran). Thomas Jefferson had a child or children with one of his slaves – which, in our current system, would be considered rape, given the power structure. Gandhi was . . . interesting . . . in his sexual practices. King was an adulterer. Churchill was a mean drunk. JFK was a serial adulterer.
I could go on and on and on and on. It appears that tremendously charismatic, visionary people (especially if they also are good looking) have some kind of defect/disability/character trait/whatever that makes them almost bi-polar. They have extraordinary (“great and terrible”) personalities.
Perhaps a condition of the type of person who actually starts a generally positive major movement of any kind (a founding prophet in religion) is this wonderful AND terrible personality. Joseph Smith is an excellent example. He had a LOT of wonderful qualities, but he also had an enormous self-respect, shall we say – tempered by real humility, as well. The wonderful qualities are what separates him from people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, a few Catholic Popes, Koresh, and, at the risk of offending people, Trump – all of whom in whom I see almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I’m going to take something OON said and append a thought to Ray’s list: On Own Now wrote:
– 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.
I served a mission in a country with a turbulent past (that narrows it down to a country somewhere in this universe, right?). I was a little surprised because I learned of a ruthless dictator that was the leader of the country for a long time. About 50% of the people loved the man, the other 50% hated him. He was a very polarizing figure, you either loved him or you hated him. But I think it’s true of most charismatic/controversial leaders. “…my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” isn’t exactly a stretch for leaders of movements.
Reuben wrote:
I think this sticks with me because it so starkly illustrates the double standard we apply. Joseph gets a break, but the rest of us don’t. Joseph is assumed to be able to tap into the very thoughts of God no matter what he’s done, but we have to be absolutely pure to even qualify for a subtle feeling. Joseph can apparently heal the sick even while being unfaithful to his wife and lying to all of Nauvoo, but we have to be cleansed every whit from our iniquity.We believe that God is no respecter of persons, so shouldn’t we have the same standards for access to the powers of heaven as Joseph Smith? It seems a just God would set things up that way. But as far as I can tell, most active members live more righteously than Joseph, but experience access that, compared to Joseph’s reported access, is positively feeble.
At church Joseph exists largely in a realm of myths and legends, we don’t have that luxury.
I imagine that it requires a great deal of hubris to make the claim that you speak for god. The way we describe the requirements for miracles (“righteousness,” faith proceeds the miracle, etc.) also sounds like something that requires a great deal of hubris.
Contrast this to the example of the young man who couldn’t stop masturbating. He probably has zero self confidence because of the “sin” he can’t overcome. The lack of confidence that comes from the guilt/shame cycle of addiction. If self confidence plays any role in what we believe to be the process of commanding the powers of heaven I can see how (and I’m not making judgments about Joseph, I’m just saying) a sociopath may have the edge over a humble person that never feels as though they measure up, even when the humble person is by far the more “righteous.”
Old Timer wrote:
I could go on and on and on and on. It appears that tremendous charismatic, visionary people (especially if they also are good looking) have some kind of defect/disability/character trait/whatever that makes them almost bi-polar. They have extraordinary (“great and terrible”) personalities.Perhaps a condition of the type of person who actually starts a generally positive major movement of any kind (a founding prophet in religion) is this wonderful AND terrible personality. Joseph Smith is an excellent example. He had a LOT of wonderful qualities, but he also had an enormous self-respect, shall we say – tempered by real humility, as well. The wonderful qualities are what separates him from people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, a few Catholic Popes, Koresh, and, at the risk of offending people, Trump – all of whom in whom I see almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I think something like this, maybe tempered with “he’s an enigma,” is what the Church eventually has to converge to. Understanding how Joseph could possibly be worthy will be a struggle, so that explanation will have to be accompanied by a more expansive view of grace. I’m all for that, by the way. Hero worship has saddled the Saints with crazy high expectations.
FWIW, this is close to the conclusion I had come to before my faith crisis, which was not really about Church history (though it was a secondary factor). It was why I allowed myself to expect help from God. If Joseph could get up to all that and still get miracles, why couldn’t I?
Now, though, I go with “Joseph’s access to the powers of heaven has been absurdly overclaimed” and “Joseph was a sincere and gifted spiritualist” as being the most likely explanations.
nibbler wrote:
Plus… doesn’t founding a religious movement have it’s privileges? Meaning if you were to start your own religion something would have to go seriously wrong for you to be excommunicated.:angel:
Funnily there have been some churches which have excommunicated their founders – I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Suffice to say the more mainstream a church is, the easier it is to do this.
Old Timer wrote:The wonderful qualities are what separates him from people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, a few Catholic Popes, Koresh, and, at the risk of offending people, Trump – all of whom in whom I see almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Koresh has been demonized but it is worth pointing out the American government attacked Waco and not the other way round and they spent years trying to cover that fact up.
As for Lenin, many people do think he had some good qualities. He was definitely not in the same league of evil as Stalin and his cult of personality came later. Lenin enjoyed a large degree of popular support because the tsarist regime itself was brutal and gave working class people no rights – it had also dragged Russia into a war in which millions died and which it could not win. He’s a controversial figure but still widely admired. (I can see both good and bad aspects to what he did. Some of the Soviet Union’s more unsavory aspects – persecution of Jews, Siberian camps, famines, lack of democracy etc were all around before the Revolution. I’m not convinced Russia has ever been democratic.)
SamBee wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Plus… doesn’t founding a religious movement have it’s privileges? Meaning if you were to start your own religion something would have to go seriously wrong for you to be excommunicated.:angel:
Funnily there have been some churches which have excommunicated their founders – I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Suffice to say the more mainstream a church is, the easier it is to do this.
“It’s great to be the king”, until the king is dethroned.Good point about Lenin, Sam. His situation (replacing the tsars) is a good example of the need to understand context as fully as possible when evaluating people from an earlier time period – and even now. Reuben I actually agree with your point and even Bridget’s. I well remember hearing Elder Anderson make that lovely comment and seething for days. Over and over I imagined getting a chance to talk to Elder Anderson and telling him to cut everyone else some slack. Suffice it to say Elder Anderson and I are on very bad terms. I was thrilled when I learned I had to be out of town when he came to our recent Stake Conference. The OP was how do I reconcile Joseph Smith. I wrote I cut him out. I really do. I can even recount the history and it barely effects me anymore. Do I wish a million things were done differently both from Joseph and the church. Yes. Tons of things. I will never get any of them. I am a Christian, by my own definition. I choose to refresh or grow my Christianity through the Mormon Faith. That’s all. Joseph is now just some guy who helped it get started.
As to standards of excommunication the whole thing gets messy. We should remember that the church emerit-ized Paul H. Dunn for far less than Joseph ever did. I am not excusing Elder Dunn’s fabrication choices but even in the upper levels of the church we cut no one much slack anymore.
Reuben wrote:I might be reading too much into it, so be warned that my response might mostly have to do with my own problem with Joseph Smith.
…thanks for the fair warning, and for continuing on with responding how you see it. Many of us agree with parts of your response.
Reuben wrote:I can think of three explanations. The first is that Joseph’s access to the powers of heaven has been absurdly overclaimed. The second is that the worthiness necessary for such access has been absurdly overclaimed. The third explanation is a mix of the previous two.
Frankly, for someone who wants to believe, all of those explanations suck in some way.
For me, that was why I liked Rough Stone Rolling…it provided better explanations and more info than just white-washed, legendary stories of a man who could do no wrong. It was better to see the juxtaposition of problems and mistakes with the efforts to accomplish something (even if messy). It didn’t ignore the problems, nor did it resort to John Krakauer’s conclusions on the religion.
There are ways to reconcile how to StayLDS and also accept Joseph did things we out right reject today. There are BETTER explanations out there if we seek them…or if we can’t find them…we should create better ones. Because what he did with polygamy is quite problematic…no question for me. I hate it. Bugs the crap out of me….I see it as a big mistake.
Quote:Basically, every explanation that accounts for Joseph Smith’s behavior, our doctrine, and our lived experience, well, sucks.
With all due respect, just in keeping with the purpose of the thread and the OP…this last statement is not a way to reconcile it. It is more a valid expression of frustration on Joseph Smith and lame explanations we sometimes hear about the history. Which is fine…just…what do we do about it?
When Molly originally asked:
Quote:how can I stay LDS when I’m questioning if Joseph Smith …was even a prophet?
…we can probably all agree it is a very valid question.
And I think you really nailed it when you said…
Reuben wrote:Even if you don’t, you can find things that are beautiful and compelling.
That explanation doesn’t suck.
I also agree with you that we can find things that are beautiful and compelling. I find valid reasons to StayLDS despite it all.
I don’t worship Joseph Smith. That point is clearly step 1. Letting go of past mistakes I made with my views of prophets helps me move forward adjusting my eyes in light of new and better information of how God works with us mortals…even a sinner like me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.