Joseph prophet or not

[Anonymous]

In that light, the final question in the original post seems to be the heart of the post:

Quote:

Does questionable personal conduct nullify a prophetic calling?

My short answer would be:

Quote:

Not if there have been ANY prophets in the history of the world.

Obviously, “questionable conduct” can mean LOTS of things, and there are levels of such conduct that are important to discuss. However, I think it is foundational to realize that this means we are engaged in a personally subjective decision when we tackle that question and understand that Jesus himself (not to mention Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Paul and Isaiah . . .) had some pretty serious questionable conduct that exclude ALL of them from acceptance as “prophets” by some people.

My slightly humorous answer would be:

Quote:

If we can accept Samson as a prophet, we can accept pretty much anyone.

I think that example, more than any other perhaps, illustrates that it’s all about the definitions and perspectives WE bring to the table – that “prophet” really can be defined in various ways in differing times.

[Anonymous]

Mister Curie,

I am aware that none of these single facts proves their claim. But taken together, I find the evidence very convincing. I know there is evidence JS was a polygamist, but I think the evidence against is stronger. I also think people are generally unaware of it. I actually enjoy debating the matter, but also I think you would do better reading the book and debating it as you read. I did an awful lot of research as I read it. I honestly can’t remember half of what was in the book, and I can’t present their arguments as well as they did.

I looked up the DNA research a while ago. It’s called the Joseph Smith DNA Project or something like that. I think it’s funded by BYU, and it seemed to me that the guy doing it fully expects to find these descendants. I emailed the guy and he wrote me back–he seems like a regular Mormon with regular Mormon beliefs about polygamy.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Ray, didn’t mean to hijack the thread. Where is a good place to post about polygamy here?

[Anonymous]

allquieton, check out these links:

D&C: Original Intent (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=764)

The Polygamy Problem (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=603)

OK, I’ll say it: Polygamy (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27)

[Anonymous]

allquieton wrote:

Mister Curie,

I am aware that none of these single facts proves their claim. But taken together, I find the evidence very convincing. I know there is evidence JS was a polygamist, but I think the evidence against is stronger. I also think people are generally unaware of it. I actually enjoy debating the matter, but also I think you would do better reading the book and debating it as you read. I did an awful lot of research as I read it. I honestly can’t remember half of what was in the book, and I can’t present their arguments as well as they did.

I looked up the DNA research a while ago. It’s called the Joseph Smith DNA Project or something like that. I think it’s funded by BYU, and it seemed to me that the guy doing it fully expects to find these descendants. I emailed the guy and he wrote me back–he seems like a regular Mormon with regular Mormon beliefs about polygamy.

Perhaps I’ll try to get the book through inter-library loan. It could be interesting to debate it’s claims, particularly as I’m reading “In Sacred Loneliness” by Todd Compton.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray,

I appreciate what you said. We can agree to disagree and it’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t think Joseph would be a good apostle right now – but I also am convinced that Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Monson would have been even greater failures in Joseph’s shoes. Those men as they are now would be totally inappropriate for the founding of a new religion. Founding a new religion, especially amid intense persecution in a wild, frontier environment, requires exactly the type of man Joseph was – and God has to use those who can do what needs to be done in the time it needs to be done. Likewise, Brigham Young couldn’t have filled Joseph’s role or Gordon’s / Thomas’ role, and not one of them could have filled Brigham’s role.

I simply think we do each and every one of them a tremendous dis-service when we compare them to each other, because we generally miss their unique contributions in the focus on their weaknesses and over-estimate their abilities to be someone other than they are. Part of my “reconciliation” of Joseph (and Brigham) as a prophet is my recognition that he just might have been the ONLY person available at the time in that location who could have done what would be required – and my even deeper recognition that I need to thank God every single day that it wasn’t me who was in that situation. I’m fairly certain I would have failed miserably – and, honestly, I’m not sure I know ANYONE closely in whom I am confident in their ability to succeed ANY better than Joseph and Brigham – and, by extension, even Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Monson.

I love this Ray! It is so Darwinian and I agree completely: this is the only way we could have gotten from there (20 yr. old JS) to here (2009 version of cojcolds)

I don’t know if that defines JS as a prophet, but from an evolutionary organizational standpoint, he’d have to be (in a religious context, specifically a mormon theology context)

Of course, as someone else said, there would be a similarly strong argument for Oliver Cowdery (sp?) being a prophet.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

I don’t know if that defines JS as a prophet, but from an evolutionary organizational standpoint, he’d have to be (in a religious context, specifically a mormon theology context)

good comments, swim.

I think this says something about these leaders of ours, because they desire to do God’s will, which means what needs to be done in 1830 is different than 2009, and so Pres Monson doesn’t need to try to be Pres Smith … he just needs to do what needs to be done today, and appreciate more fully those who have gone before him.

There is a lesson there for me also, and how I want to live my life.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Given what we have come to learn about the personal conduct of Joseph at times is it possible or more correctly can you still believe he was a prophet receiving revelation from God? Was he a prophet in the beginning but not in the end? Was he a prophet until he died? Was he ever a prophet? I want to believe on some level all that that he put forth has some truth in it. Does questionable personal conduct nullify a prophetic calling?

If Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet then he basically had to be a deliberate liar and possibly crazy as well. Seriously what other explanations are there? A demon-possessed occultist? One theory is that Joseph justified telling “pious” lies that he thought would increase people’s faith and strenghthen the Church. To claim personal revelation or inspiration is one thing but the Book of Mormon is something else entirely. This story is so fantastic that if you don’t believe it you can’t just chalk it off as an honest mistake or misguided delusion.

Either Joseph Smith really found and translated the Book of Mormon with some supernatural assistance or he would have had to devise a fairly elaborate hoax. A hoax would require Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer to either be surprisingly loyal co-conspirators or they were somehow tricked/hypnotized into believing that they saw things they really didn’t. Maybe they even fabricated some metal plates to trick other witnesses as well.

I think this is one reason many anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons are so opposed to the LDS Church because once you start to make assumptions of deliberate fraud it becomes really hard to sympathize with Joseph and claim that he was only human. Once you don’t trust Joseph Smith in some cases then it’s hard to trust him in other cases as well.

There’s no way to know for sure what he was thinking or what his experiences were. All you can do is consider the evidence and make your own conclusions. Personally, I don’t believe in the traditional Mormon idea of prophets as some kind of ultimate final authority where we should just trust them without question and consider all their words as literally God-given truth without fail. I’m not so sure that there have ever been any prophets like that whether Moses, Isaiah, etc.

[Anonymous]

“Does questionable personal conduct nullify a prophetic calling?”

If this were the case it would nullify all old testment prophetic callings and many of the new and BOM prophetic callings as well. And oviously and many modern prophets.

[Anonymous]

Devil’s Advocate, pardon my bluntness, please, but what you describe in your last paragraph is NOT the stance of the LDS Church. It isn’t even the belief paradigm of a large percentage of the membership, and it certainly doesn’t match what Joseph said about himself. Also, I don’t know of a single apostle in the history of the Church who said or who would say that Joseph was infallible and that every word that came from his mouth was God’s perfect word.

One of the purposes of this site is to cut through all the stuff that has grown in the culture of the Church and find the core of what I call “pure Mormonism” that can bring us joy and allow us to stay LDS of our own volition – and, ultimately, of our own desire. In order to do that, I believe we simply MUST let go of what some members believe and not attribute those things to “the Church” as a whole – or even the leadership. We simply can’t argue for or against strawmen on this site, since it just isn’t productive for our own growth or the edification of the community.

Not everything we say here has to be edifying, but we just can’t traffic in strawmen and hyperbole. We simply can’t.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

All you can do is consider the evidence and make your own conclusions. Personally, I don’t believe in the traditional Mormon idea of prophets as some kind of ultimate final authority where we should just trust them without question and consider all their words as literally God-given truth without fail. I’m not so sure that there have ever been any prophets like that whether Moses, Isaiah, etc.

Well … it sounds like you answered your own questions.

There really isn’t the either/or, black/white, true/false dichotomies many of us expected, wanted and assumed. So where was the error? False prophets or false expectations? As always, the answers are inside us.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

the traditional Mormon idea of prophets as some kind of ultimate final authority where we should just trust them without question and consider all their words as literally God-given truth without fail.

There is a dominant element of this in some families/traditions/people in the church. It’s wonderful for you to recognize that the element of it that was in your own family/tradition/heart was gravely mistaken or simply a part of your development it’s time to leave behind. And it’s good for you to desire to be a minimizing influence on the persistence of that element. I think this site is all about finding the way that really works to be a healer and a good influence, partly or largely by healing ourselves first.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the Church tries to project a vision of the “infallible Prophet/Leader of the Church. Years ago, Gordan B. Hinkley’s doctor advised him to “carry a cane”, fearing the GBH was a little unstable on his feet.

GBH bought a cane and “carried it”, but refused to use it for support as he walked. I think that he wanted to appear strong and stable and allow the Lord to uphold him instead of relying on a cane for support. Honestly, there were many times when I feared that GBH would literally be a “fallen Prophet”.

Truth is, we can all fall. We can all mess up and big time!! “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”.

From the Book of Mosiah, Chapter 1, here is King Benjamin|:

0 I have not commanded you to come up hither, that ye should fear me, or that ye should think that I, of myself, am more than a mortal man;

[SNIP, large text cut out by moderator]

King Benjamin considered himself “of the dust”, but confessed that the “dust” belonged to “Him who created it”.

Prophets exist as servants unto the Lord. Some are more faithful than others. Our challenge is to emulate Christ, not man, serve God, not men.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Well … it sounds like you answered your own questions.

There really isn’t the either/or, black/white, true/false dichotomies many of us expected, wanted and assumed. So where was the error? False prophets or false expectations? As always, the answers are inside us.

The error could possibly be both false prophets and false expectations. Maybe Joseph Smith lied for whatever reason and maybe the other LDS prophets have been defending and promoting some of these lies ever since. Maybe there really is some genuine revelation and inspiration but perhaps it’s just not as clear and reliable as many Mormons want to believe. Maybe the Church’s essential message is mostly correct but no organization managed by people will ever be perfect and critics have exaggerated any perceived flaws in an unrealistic and dishonest way.

In any case, some ex-Mormons had extremely high expectations about how great Joseph Smith and his work was supposed to be but as soon as they found some less-than-flattering information about him it was devastating to their faith and many of them have now become atheist/agnostic and feel betrayed by religion in general. I don’t know what the Church should do about this but I think scenarios like this will only increase with easier access to information and different opinions. Now there are even some “new order” Mormons who don’t believe in Joseph Smith’s claims but still attend/support the Church for other reasons.

[Author]

Posts