I need help.

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

I think the thing I’m having the hardest time with is Joseph Smith. And I think a majority of it was due to the stories and information I was told at church vs. what the history says. How have you guys worked through things like the seer stone vs. urim & thummim, polyandry, book of abraham & etc?

I see JS as a great man that accomplished many great things and started a movement that continues to do many great things. I find it helpful to compare him to MLK or others that were also great men with large personal flaws.

As far as the BoM, BoA, peep stones etc. I find it helpful to compare them to Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The book itself was not great – but it accomplished much good.

I see everything that JS experienced and everything that JS produced as coming from within JS (with the undesrtanding that JS was influenced by his environment and may have also had an element of divine inspiration mixed in).

The good news is that the Modern LDS church is only loosely based on the church set up by JS. As already mentioned, his behavior would not be tolerated today. The church today is very much about family first and service and education and stability and planning for the future. These are all good things. This isn’t the church of JS or BY anymore – it is better.

[Anonymous]

Joseph is the most chastised person in the D&C.

He called himself a rough stone rolling.

He was told his name would be had for good and evil.

I’m okay with all of those things, and I use them to filter what the institutional church produced for so long – since his “official” story was filtered through the lenses of people who loved and adored him.

If I wrote a completely honest, comprehensive autobiography, it would be radically different than one written by the people who know and love me. I have the luxury of living in relative anonymity – and I am grateful for that.

Truly great people tend to live on the edges – and when they fall, they tend to face plant. Joseph fits the historical mold really well – at least partially because of the extreme range of his actions and face plants.

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

I think the thing I’m having the hardest time with is Joseph Smith. And I think a majority of it was due to the stories and information I was told at church vs. what the history says. How have you guys worked through things like the seer stone vs. urim & thummim, polyandry, book of abraham & etc?

I do not say this openly because there isn’t much point in distressing and antagonizing people around me, but I cleared everything out and switched my believe-it switch to “off.” This is going to sound prideful, or something, but it means absolutely nothing to me anymore that a person called a prophet said or did anything. Ideas, doctrines, truth claims are allowed back in based on new criteria.

My real problem isn’t with JS and what he did, it’s with the people now who insist that God told him to do it. Joseph, they’ll say over and over, “was flawed,” but we can never say how. Why not let every Mormon call it as he/she sees it, and speak Joseph Smith’s name for good and evil? I think we’d net more good than we do now.

[Anonymous]

metalrain, Let me make 4 suggestions.

The first is in your studies. Read something that feeds your soul in addition to your compulsive study of issues. Don’t let yourself get sucked into the anti’s negativity. There’s boat loads of negative crap on the net written out of bitterness, anger, maliciousness, etc. As a standard rule, whether in conversation, or some media item, I simply discount anything that is overwhelmingly negative. I do this for religion, politics, and social stuff, too. Learn how to spot balanced reporting, and think through their motivations. This rule probably holds for overwhelming positive subjects as well (like anything Mormon), but it seldom cankers the soul like negativity does.

Second, I suggest you take a broad view. What is the net result? For example, objective Church history shows how 6 people in upstate New York in 1830 grew to today’s Church with 15+million members with congregations in 160 countries. This was don despite incessant resistance and violence. Starting with young Joseph being chased by those wishing to do him harm, and later tarred and feathered for his beliefs. He and his followers were chased by mobs out of their homes in Kirkland, then Missouri, and again Nauvoo. They finally fled the United States to a cricket infested place 1,200 miles away. There they hoped to be safe living on the edge of a desert than no one except for a few Indians wanted. Yet within a few years Johnson’s Army marched to Utah to put down the “Mormon Rebellion”. Some deft negotiations saved them from attack, but struggling to survive in the wasteland took they built first irrigation-based economy in the western hemisphere. Although that put food on the table, trouble wasn’t far off. The US government pressed strongly its opposition to polygamy by imprisoning participants, and when that didn’t work it moved to take over all Church properties, and threatened the temples as well. The Church teetered on bankruptcy, so they renounced a strongly held religious belief in polygamy. Meanwhile Reed Smoot, a monogamist was elected at Utah’s first Senator. Nevertheless he was not seated by the US Senate for 4 years because of suspicions of Mormons. Since then, the Church has become more main stream, surviving the Great Depression better than many states because of the Church Welfare Program. Mormons, together with all Americans suffered through 2 world wars. Now, 185 years later. The Church is being accepted into the mainstream. Their numbers have grown from 6 to 15+ million members with congregations in 160 countries. Spanish is spoken by more members than English, and more members live outside the US than inside. All the above happened because Joseph with only 3 years of formal education asked a simple question. (Remember is all right to ask questions)

Third, take a broad view of the Church’s effect on your life. For example, I live much more conservatively than I otherwise would. I would drink alcohol, a real problem if you have an addictive personality. Then there are drugs, an even greater hazard. And biggest of all is no sexual promiscuity. Both my wife and I give our Temple Marriage credit for us not getting a divorce. After 24 years, we are thankful of that influence.

Fourth, If you can take a broad look at Mormonism’s effect on your life. What about the people you have met through it? What about the values and standards that raise your standards? You could do a lot worst. If you decide to leave the Church, make sure your have a better place to go. Remember it isn’t a binary decision whether the Church is True or not. You can accept what it works and shelve what doesn’t

Fourth, If you like to read and think, I suggest Terryl Givens books. I have read and reread “The God Who Weeps”. For me, It answers questions that make being Mormon worthwhile: Why God cares, given all the crap in mortality, What is faith and how it is different from testimony, & the critical importance of free agency. What may be more relevant to you now is his book “The Crucible of Doubt”. And don’t forget StayLDS. There are lots of caring people here, who are honest and forth coming, and amazingly knowledgeable people here. And you can do a search on this site on virtually any topic related to Mormonism, to see how others who have faced a Faith Crisis make sense of it.

[Anonymous]

This quote just made me think

Ann wrote:

Joseph Smith’s name for good and evil

It didn’t say that believers would call his name good and non-believers would call him evil. Maybe even within the church there is both calling him good and evil and a being a prophet is a separate category.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I do not say this openly because there isn’t much point in distressing and antagonizing people around me, but I cleared everything out and switched my believe-it switch to “off.” This is going to sound prideful, or something, but it means absolutely nothing to me anymore that a person called a prophet said or did anything. Ideas, doctrines, truth claims are allowed back in based on new criteria.

My real problem isn’t with JS and what he did, it’s with the people now who insist that God told him to do it. Joseph, they’ll say over and over, “was flawed,” but we can never say how. Why not let every Mormon call it as he/she sees it, and speak Joseph Smith’s name for good and evil? I think we’d net more good than we do now.

I can relate with this. I’ve had to dump everything I once accepted about JS, and I’ve started over from the very basic doctrines that Christ taught. I know my picture of JS is more negative than most others on the site. I can’t view him as a prophet, no matter how much I try to change my definition of what a prophet is. I’ve mentioned this multiple times in other posts, so I won’t get into it much, but I view him as little more than a power-driven egomaniac. I’ve scrapped everything he taught. This was done with some reluctance at first, and I was waiting to feel a complete loss of the spirit for not supporting JS and his teachings (temple attendance, wearing garments, reading BofM/D&C/PofGP, etc.). But, I’ve actually felt closer to the spirit than I have in years. I focus most of my study on the basic principles that Christ taught.

However, it’s important to note that this was the best way that I could find for MY journey. Yours could be very different. Everybody needs to find their own balance. What works for one person, won’t necessarily work for another. I think that’s why DarkJedi’s frequent advice to people to take things slowly is so great. Everybody needs to take as much time as they need to find their own way, and exactly what they are prepared to accept/not accept.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard, that is exactly what I meant about his name “being had for good and evil”.

The words themselves, taken only for what they actually say, are fascinating. Collectively, we gloss over them, since we assume we will call him good and others will call him bad – but that isn’t what the words themselves say.

My own interpretation is that he would do both good and evil – and that he would do so on a large enough stage that many people would see his actions and recognize all that he did. I see it as the earliest prophetic statement – that was reiterated in hindsight in D&C 121:39 –

Quote:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

[Anonymous]

I grew up with a strong testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, who had done more for the salvation of mankind than anyone else, save Jesus only.

I never really thought about what that meant, or how to prove the statement…I just heard it a lot on Sunday and I revered him as the prophet of the last dispensation.

He accomplished so many good works, brought forth scripture and revelation, established the church again as God commanded him. He organized people and started a movement that went beyond himself, and has survived today into a significant organization.

Then, I became aware of the historical facts hidden from most of us, because…well..they didn’t protect his legacy and they were confusing and not inspiring.

But I told myself, I’m a big boy now…I should be able to look into what is real, and determine what is good and bad for me to know. I want truth.

I went through many books, and Rough Stone Rolling was a good, fairly balanced approach at the events, letting me make up my mind.

I never got angry or disbelieved Joseph Smith, I more just adjusted my focus and vision, to be able to say, “Joseph did some crazy stuff, and made mistakes AND he also did some amazing things and great works that have blessed my life, and millions others.” The “AND” is important.

I don’t focus solely on the bad stuff he did. But I don’t dismiss it. It’s all a part of the man he was. It is comforting for me to know God can work through imperfect mortals, perhaps even me.

Just because you learn new things you should have been taught a long time ago, don’t forget the things you were taught a long time ago about him. Keep it balanced.

Remember, Richard Bushman is a faithful member of the church, and he knows it all.

I think it is a reasonable response to say, “Based on what I’ve just learned…I can’t imagine a prophet of God acts that way. But I’m open to keep learning.”

You don’t want to jump from “I KNOW he saw God” to “I KNOW he is a fraud” too quickly. There are a lot of factors on understanding what a prophet is and isn’t that needs to be studied.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I grew up with a strong testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, who had done more for the salvation of mankind than anyone else, save Jesus only.

I never really thought about what that meant, or how to prove the statement…I just heard it a lot on Sunday and I revered him as the prophet of the last dispensation.

He accomplished so many good works, brought forth scripture and revelation, established the church again as God commanded him. He organized people and started a movement that went beyond himself, and has survived today into a significant organization.

Then, I became aware of the historical facts hidden from most of us, because…well..they didn’t protect his legacy and they were confusing and not inspiring.

But I told myself, I’m a big boy now…I should be able to look into what is real, and determine what is good and bad for me to know. I want truth.

I went through many books, and Rough Stone Rolling was a good, fairly balanced approach at the events, letting me make up my mind.

I never got angry or disbelieved Joseph Smith, I more just adjusted my focus and vision, to be able to say, “Joseph did some crazy stuff, and made mistakes AND he also did some amazing things and great works that have blessed my life, and millions others.” The “AND” is important.

I don’t focus solely on the bad stuff he did. But I don’t dismiss it. It’s all a part of the man he was. It is comforting for me to know God can work through imperfect mortals, perhaps even me.

I can relate to this quite a bit. I had the same view but the transition has been hard. It’s hard for me to think about things logically and balance faith/spirituality, especially from what the church has taught vs. the historical details omitted.

IE: Joseph died a martyr, firm in his testimony. (Omitted: Because he ordered the destruction of a printing press. And his party was armed- not exactly the lamb to the slaughter I’ve always been taught)

Joseph lived in nice homes and had lots of things while other members had nothing. The bank and those failures. How/why?

An angel with a flaming sword commanding him to do polygamy/polyandry? I have SUCH a hard time with that.

The other side of the argument, is, like you said. If God can work through such imperfect mortals, then are his judgements as harsh as I’ve been lead to believe? I feel like a lot of the things Joseph did would have gotten him ex’d instantly in the church today. Am I going to be judged lighter than I anticipated? I sure hope so.

I feel like the church is so good, but there are things I just don’t like. The staunch opposition to gay marriage. The fact that girls are still set on motherhood and not careers and developing their talents. IF I ever have daughters, how do I contradict the things they are taught at church and make sure that they know that they can do whatever they want and be as successful or independent as they please?

I’ve felt better the last few days, but I’ve been partially avoiding everything.

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

If God can work through such imperfect mortals, then are his judgments as harsh as I’ve been lead to believe?

ahh…I think you are starting to ask some very important questions now. Very important questions. Stuff that really matters to you and your journey, as opposed to just historical facts. For me, that was when I was starting to get on the path to truth.

I can share with you my experience…without a doubt…I came to an overwhelming feeling that “Everything was OK”. God’s judgments will be harsh enough to push me to be my best, and not harsher than that.

At the same time, my daughter gave me a picture of me and her laughing, and the caption read:

Quote:

It will all be OK when it is all over. If it is not OK, then it is not over.

She didn’t know what I was going through…but it was an amazing answer for me and direction in my journey.

The difficult part is that it is a private and lonely journey you go on to figure things out in your head. Keep learning, and keep asking the right questions. Always trade up, and don’t use new information to justify lowering your spirituality.

[Anonymous]

I feel like caffeine was the perfect example: to the point where they had to issue a statement that caffeine was “ok”. Duh it was ok. But, that’s the way it is with a lot of GA type statements. GA says it, GA was “right”, then GA comes after and usurps what the old GA said. How do you deal with that?

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

I feel like caffeine was the perfect example: to the point where they had to issue a statement that caffeine was “ok”. Duh it was ok. But, that’s the way it is with a lot of GA type statements. GA says it, GA was “right”, then GA comes after and usurps what the old GA said. How do you deal with that?

If I’m wearing my old TBM hat, I’d say it was continuing revelation and it wouldn’t matter because I would still say I’m not going to drink caffeine. Wearing my shiny new less orthodox hat, I’d say this (and I do all the time):

Quote:

…there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”

This was one of the Savior’s criticisms of the religious “experts” of His day, whom He chastised for attending to the hundreds of minor details of the law while neglecting the weightier matters.

(Uchtdorf, October 2009)

My focus is the core principles of the gospel – that Jesus is the Christ, we should love our neighbors, etc. Look at what GAs are really saying, and you might be surprised at how little they (especially the Q15) talk about things that are not core principles.

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

I feel like caffeine was the perfect example: to the point where they had to issue a statement that caffeine was “ok”. Duh it was ok. But, that’s the way it is with a lot of GA type statements. GA says it, GA was “right”, then GA comes after and usurps what the old GA said. How do you deal with that?

DJ said it very well.

Everything should be perceived with the gospel in mind. What are these things trying to teach us? How do these things help me become the person God wants me to become?

GAs don’t speak truth about specific details. They provide their opinions of how they see it as they try to teach gospel principles to the church members. Members love it when they can get an answer in detail…how many steps to take on Sunday so they know they are OK, etc.

If you ask the GA privately…they will confirm…caffeine doesn’t matter. Its the principle behind it. Principles of sacrifice, tolerance, self-control, obedience, humility, cheerfulness, and all things point to love of God and love of your neighbor.

Fowler’s stages of faith describe how you go from Stage 3 which is very much about the rules and the organization for identity. But we can move beyond that, and yet not dismiss the rules as of no worth…just accepting the rules are there for a purpose. The spirit of the law is really what GAs want members to learn, so they can govern themselves.

You can separate out the cutlure of mormonism (soda has caffeine=bad) with the gospel principles (word of wisdom=take care of your body). You have to give yourself permission to get personal revelation on what is right based on the teachings we have. Allow your opinion to be different than the bishop, or the GA, or the prophet, and don’t put your faith in the arm of flesh.

[Anonymous]

metalrain wrote:

It’s hard for me to think about things logically and balance faith/spirituality, especially from what the church has taught vs. the historical details omitted.

IE: Joseph died a martyr, firm in his testimony. (Omitted: Because he ordered the destruction of a printing press. And his party was armed- not exactly the lamb to the slaughter I’ve always been taught)

metalrain, I’m glad you brought up this example. Let me use it as a springboard to give you some tools that you can use to help though this.

It is true that the Church paints JS as being held on false charges and that he was defenseless and went like a lamb to the slaughter, etc. And it is a common objection from people like us when we realize that JS seemed to cause it by the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and that he was ARMED in jail and even FIRED his weapon. But then what happens is that we, because we feel that we have been deceived, we tend to go to the other extreme. JS, in our minds, kind of deserved it and we even start to get in our minds that it was a gunfight, not a mob action, etc. My advice is to stay away from either extreme and to try to find a middle ground, where JS was partly wrong and partly wronged.

On the issue of the Nauvoo Expositor, JS did cause its destruction. But remember that just 11 years earlier, the citizens of Jackson County had destroyed the Evening and the Morning Star press for being, well, pro-free-black-people, not even anti-slavery, just OK with the concept of free blacks. And that mob got away with it… and got rid of the Mormons… and never had to pay any reparations or answer to anyone. JS, aparently not wanting to use mob tactics, but wanting to accomplish the same end result, tried to legitimize the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor using the authority of the City Council, the City Charter, and legal arguments based on the writings of William Blackstone. Was JS trying to ratchet up his dictatorial power or was he trying to defend truth and right in the face of impossible odds? The fact is, we don’t know what was in his mind.

On the issue of lamb to the slaughter… JS tried to stay in Nauvoo as if nothing would come of it, but soon tried to flee. Friends, though, didn’t like that he was running away and leaving them to bear the brunt of the backlash alone. Eventually, he relented and returned to Nauvoo and indicated that he would turn himself in. He left Nauvoo early in the morning, before sun-up and rode toward Carthage. After almost arriving, though, he was met by an agent of the Governor who had an order to reclaim all the firearms that had been allocated by the state to the Nauvoo Legion. JS agreed to the action, but suggested that it would be a smoother handover if he went back to oversee it. So, JS turned around and rode back to Nauvoo. The Legion members met peacefully, under JS’s supervision, in front of the Masonic Lodge (or Cultural Hall) to turn in the state owned arms. JS then returned to the road and rode to Carthage.

At Carthage, JS was ‘protected’ by forces hostile to him and to the Mormons. He was verbally assaulted and threatened by those same forces as he walked between the courthouse and the jail. Friends smuggled in two handguns that the prisoners could use for self defense, if needed. Hyrum had one that was never fired, and JS had one that was fired three times (misfiring three times as well). But make no mistake about it, it was a slaughter. JS was murdered while in state custody at the age of 38. Small arms aside, they were defenseless in a town overflowing with state militia who where there to keep the peace. Even Nauvoo Expositor founder, William Law who hated JS, seemed disturbed at what had transpired.

I bring all this up simply to point out that the story is neither as the Church tells it nor as the anti-Church tells it. It’s complicated. You have been set free from the sanitized history. But don’t run to the sensationalized history in revolt. It is just as ‘off’. I try to understand those early Church people. I frequently don’t agree with them. I think JS did plenty of wrong things, but he also suffered much. My own interpretation of the man is that he was power-hungry, liked the ladies more than a man of God should… and was a gluttonous man and a winebibber. I also think that he was committed to the organization and doctrine that he set in motion; eventually sacrificing everything. JS was an extremely interesting person.

I hope you are able to find peace. It took me quite a while, but I eventually got there. There are things I love about the Church and things I hate about the Church. I focus on the good and try to change the bad where I can. I have found my own brand of spirituality that works for me. In some cases, the Church helps, in other places it doesn’t. But I never let it hinder my spirituality. The Church either helps me or I ignore it. I like some songs on the radio. Some others I don’t like. But I don’t sit there listening to songs I don’t like, complaining the whole time. I just change the station or turn it off and listen to the road.

[Anonymous]

I am recently acting on my doubts. I smelled something fishy for a long time, but avoided reading more because I had too much to lose. My membership suffered as I lost motivation. Being untrue to myself made the whole thing leave a bad taste in my mouth. Finally one night I too found the ces letter, and then the fairmormon response, and I got the confirming feeling from the first. I realized it was bias and voraciously sought more info. I found mormonthink.com and this forum and a bunch of documents (drawing on my college learned research skills) and found something amazing. I am not mad. I’m not bitter. I don’t feel like I was cheated. I also no longer accept the bom or JS, but I still value the pearl of great price. It doesn’t need to be true to have beauty and value, and the same is true of the church.

I am still active for now. My wife and I discuss my doubt’s and hers, though as of yet not in great detail, and we agree that for now we will continue going. We pray, read scriptures, and feel the spirit still.

My advice about digging up dirt: don’t look for angry sources. Recognize that angry people see evil in every action. Instead look at academic articles where you can find them. Recognize the holes in the logic of both sides (both the anti’s and fair’s) and see the church as a big group of people trying to find god. Some of them need absolutes (only true church and all that) but most of them just need a sense of love and belonging. There is no harm in going, loving, and belonging.

[Author]

Posts