Joseph prophet or not

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

…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.

…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.

I exaggerated this point, what I meant to say is that the idea is that the revealed word of God (scriptures) given to us by prophets should be trusted as literally true without fail. The assumption is that these words came directly from God so they must be right and because of this these revelations should basically trump or supersede other sources of knowledge. Whether this is an official policy or not this is the impression I always got.

I understand the idea that prophets or apostles are not perfect and can make mistakes and still have their own personal opinions and this all makes sense. When anti-Mormons bring up some obscure quotes from the “Journal of Discourses” or some hearsay about Joseph Smith it never bothered me nearly as much as something that doesn’t make sense in the standard works. I guess you can always interpret things differently and maybe God allows some confusion and uncertainty just to test people’s faith but sometimes it’s hard to believe that some of this came from God.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“but sometimes it’s hard to believe that some of this came from God”

then don’t.

We have “as far as it is translated correctly” – and we have fallible individuals – and we have people saying even in the Book of Mormon that “if there be mistakes, they are the mistakes of men” – and all kinds of other disclaimers all over the place.

I have no problem whatsoever taking everything in scriptures with a grain of humanity salt. I like to take some things literally, and I like to take other things symbolically, allegorically and/or figuratively. Sometimes, I like to take the same thing in more than one way. Whatever floats my boat, makes sense to me and adds meaning to my own life – that I take from it.

You have identified one of the core issues that bothers and even breaks some members. All I’m saying, really, is that you don’t have to follow that route if you don’t want to follow it. I don’t – and I serve in highly visible callings without major issues. I’m not a threat, and I’m gentle and non-combatative and comtemplative in my comments, so people don’t freak out about my views. Sometimes, they even listen – especially those who feel like they can’t speak any alternative view.

[Anonymous]

This discussion about authority, infallibility, and reliability is at the heart of my spiritual struggle.

Letting go of the need for there to be some abstract, authoritative, all-encompassing Source of Truth and and Goodness and Authority in a human being or human establishment or human book is so damn hard. (Pardon the swear.)

It makes sense that we long for it. It makes sense that some people even set themselves up as that source. Modern people have been culturally programmed to yearn for objectively provable Truth, and we search for it high and low.

But it doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t.

Truth is relational. It’s experiential. It’s too big to grasp, too deep to handle. The best we can do is catch glimpses here and there, and apply what we can apply, and leave the rest. I think the secret is to realize that I am the ultimate authority of Truth in my life. I get to say what I believe and don’t believe. I get to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling before God.

I have to trust in God that He’ll lead me where He wants me to go, and that I have the capacity within myself to listen and respond to His guidance — while maintaining a sense of humility that I’m most certainly wrong about even the things I’m most sure of. (What a frustrating paradox!)

Accepting that authority within myself, and letting go of the pipe dream that infallible external authority (in human form) exists is the hardest thing in the world for me. I struggle with it day after day. But I think that’s a key. I really do.

[Anonymous]

Well said, kaite. Very well said.

The tender balance between accepting institutional authority AND person authority is a both a great and terrible paradox – but I’ve come to love it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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.

Speaking of “questionable conduct” vs. larger than life legacy, I ran into this article that briefly talks about the contrasting views of MLK.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46005503/ns/us_news/t/towering-legend-flawed-man-kings-image-evolving/

Two quotes that seem to embody the conflicting views are the following:

Quote:

Gloria Drake, 60, of Cheraw, South Carolina, said she remembers King almost as though he was Moses leading his people to the promised land, even when there were so many reasons to doubt things would get better in an era of segregated buses, schools and lunch counters.

And,

Quote:

“It’s important for people our age to see that he wasn’t this saint-like figure, It’s making you see that just because you’re not perfect, it doesn’t mean you can’t do good.”

Just the juxtoposition that we hash about here regarding JS and others.

[Anonymous]

Call me overly simplistic but My doubts began and remain unsettled after coming across Paul,s warning not to believe an angel of light who presents another gospel. After reading that I picked up my BOM with the words ANOTHER TESTAMENT and since then have wondered if the young boy Joseph had been a pawn in the greatest delusion attempt in salvation history.

[Anonymous]

gtb7697 wrote:

Call me overly simplistic but My doubts began and remain unsettled after coming across Paul,s warning not to believe an angel of light who presents another gospel. After reading that I picked up my BOM with the words ANOTHER TESTAMENT and since then have wondered if the young boy Joseph had been a pawn in the greatest delusion attempt in salvation history.

this is the second post i have read from you in as many minutes that uses language directly from Christian, evangelical literature, generally associated with ministries witnessing to Mormons. i have seen the above statement numerous times written on a post-it note in Marriott hotel copies of the Book of Mormon.

which is funny to me. the verse you refer to in galatians is lifted right out of context. in fact, the full passage is important, because it describes “revelation” as the ONLY way the the gospel is to be received. Paul’s source of authority was the revelation of Jesus Christ, not tradition, hearsay nor scripture (the words of men), nor even an angel from heaven (referring to some other source but Christ). let’s look at the whole passage:

Paul to the Galatians wrote:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

if Paul’s essential key of authority is the revelation of Jesus Christ, and if this happened completely after the ascension, then how can any religion claim authority from the bible alone (sola scriptura)? how can any religion accept Paul’s witness and reject the doctrine that the gospel can only be taught and received through the revelation of Jesus Christ?

If god lives, if Jesus is the Christ and lives today, if the testimony of Paul is true, then ongoing revelation directly from Jesus Christ is the single, essential component of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul is saying that if anyone receives authority in any other way than by revelation of Jesus Christ, they are accursed (anathema).

further, In Galatians 2, we read about Paul differing from the other brethren on specific teachings. does this mean that the other apostles were anathema? he was essentially fighting against “correlation”. paul was indeed a “middle-way Christian.” is correlation part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? is the Gospel of Jesus Christ anything else than “He lives”? yes, in my opinion, because Paul is saying that the other essential element is revelation: both personal and corporate.

That is the message of Paul to the Galatians. That is why evangelical Christians witnessing to Mormons best not use Paul’s message in Galatians as a proof text against the Book of Mormon, because (1) the BoM witnesses of Jesus Christ throughout, and (2) its very existential claim is “via revelation”. the fact that it is not history, even by its own admission, puts it into the category of either pure fiction or pure revelation, or both. the fact that the only way that mormons accept the book of mormon is by personal revelation of jesus christ further confirms Paul’s criteria in Galatians 1. the book of mormon is by its very essence “revelation of Jesus Christ”.

whether joseph smith did indeed have a revelation of jesus christ is as unprovable as paul’s experience on the road to damascus. that’s why the truth of either must only be ascertained by one’s own personal revelation.

[Anonymous]

I had the same reaction as wayfarer. I am curious where you got that exact quote, since it is a classic, cut-and-paste evangelical charge. It also is really ironic to quote that passage from Paul when rejecting the idea of revelation and the Book of Mormon. wayfarer did a great job of talking about the actual context of the entire passage, but I’m going to focus on the historical irony of the usage of it by evangelicals.

I say it’s ironic, because Paul’s own converting vision and subsequent epistles fit exactly the complaint of the evangelical community that questions Joseph’s account – especially since Paul’s ministry, visions and epistles helped change early Christianity in MAJOR ways.

I probably should repeat that for emphasis: Paul’s visions (especially the one that stopped the requirement for circumcision among the Gentiles) and his epistles fundamentally altered Christianity in ways that people then could have termed to be “another gospel” – IF they interpreted “gospel” to be “further revelation” or “additional writings” or even “changed/additional doctrine”. Thus, Paul could be rejected for the exact same reason evangelicals use that passage to reject Joseph.

Joseph’s foundational account essentially is Paul’s foundational account – a vision of God appearing to him that led to him becoming a prophet. Angelic visitations / visions were recorded all the time in Paul’s time, even by Paul himself – but they were secondary to the appearance of God himself. In the exact same way, the claim about Moroni is secondary to the First Vision. It doesn’t happen without the First Vision. It can’t be attacked independent of the First Vision.

So, condemning Joseph’s account of Moroni’s vision and rejecting the writing that followed (The Book of Mormon) by quoting that passage of Paul’s is inconsistent with Paul’s own understanding of angels and visions and scripture. He had no problem with those things – it was the presentation of another “gospel” that concerned him.

There is a huge difference between another “testament” and another “gospel” – and it’s a very important difference. The Book of Mormon says explicitly, multiple times, especially in 3 Nephi, that the “gospel” it teaches is faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost – and there is no way, imo, to see that as “another gospel” that differs from the “gospel” of the Bible. Arguments about doctrine are valid to make (as long as people admit that even the writers of the New Testament appear to disagree about some doctrine – and certainly the early Catholic theologians and modern Protestant scholars did and do, as well). However, in evangelical terms, the word “testament” means nothing more than “witness” – and “witnessing” about Jesus actually is a key aspect of evangelism. So, rejecting another “testament” or “witness” that presents the same “gospel” is ironic – to put it as charitably as I can.

As wayfarer says, that is not “proof” of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph being a prophet – but, as bluntly as I can put it, if your rejection of the Book of Mormon is based on that classic evangelical attack, please understand how shallow, out-of-context and twisted that particular attack is.

[Anonymous]

I don’t get it.

Joseph Smith and the BoM is a fraud, because the Bible says so?

Because the Bible is perfect and the ONE TRUE PATHWAY to the gods, and the ultimate authority?

It’s almost like some folks will use a different set of logic and reason to evaluate the Bible and the Bible prophets. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Anonymous]

gtb7697 wrote:

Call me overly simplistic but My doubts began and remain unsettled after coming across Paul,s warning not to believe an angel of light who presents another gospel. After reading that I picked up my BOM with the words ANOTHER TESTAMENT and since then have wondered if the young boy Joseph had been a pawn in the greatest delusion attempt in salvation history.

Hey GTB, I wanted to include something I wrote here recently so that you can see where I’m coming from:

Quote:

I’ve been reading the epistles of Paul with some background info from “Paul’s Life and Letters.” I find a lot in there that gets glossed over at church. Paul was an interesting guy. At one moment he seems to be saying that we are saved through faith lest any man should boast but at other times he tells the congregation to expel certain sinners. At some times he champions the gentile converts against calls for their circumcision and at other times he requires his companions to be circumcised. He writes inspiring passages on love being greater than all, but at other times he nurses grudges for his fellow servants’ offenses. He seems to have been significantly autonomous from the church HQ, receiving his call, ordination, authority, and direction strait from God. He seems to have been an intensely complex and passionate man.

Anyway, I find some parts that really gel with me and those gems become personal beacons. In other parts I think, “hmm, how interesting.” In still others I affectionately say to Paul, “You so crazy!”

I agree that in the LDS church we cherry pick the scriptures that back us up and downplay or ignore or explain away the scriptures that seem to contradict us. But I would also suggest that other Christian churches do the same. I currently attend the LDS church in the morning and an evening session of another Christian church in the evening. It would be very tempting to cut ties with the LDS both physically and mentally by declaring them to be wrong and mainline Christianity to be right. As it is now, I find both comfort and frustration in both faith traditions. Internally I am not completely “one of them,” externally I am not completely “one of them.” It would be nice to belong fully again.

If you are capable and inclined to do this and the relationship fallout is not too great, then I will not condemn you. I wish you peace. I wish you joy. I wish you meaning.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I wish you peace. I wish you joy. I wish you meaning.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

gtb7697 wrote:

Call me overly simplistic but My doubts began and remain unsettled after coming across Paul,s warning not to believe an angel of light who presents another gospel. After reading that I picked up my BOM with the words ANOTHER TESTAMENT and since then have wondered if the young boy Joseph had been a pawn in the greatest delusion attempt in salvation history.

this is the second post i have read from you in as many minutes that uses language directly from Christian, evangelical literature, generally associated with ministries witnessing to Mormons. i have seen the above statement numerous times written on a post-it note in Marriott hotel copies of the Book of Mormon.

Wayfarer. While I don’t see this scripture in the same light as you I prefer not to debate doctrine of what exactly is the revelation of Jesus Christ. I had to chuckle out loud at the thought of my observation seemong to be a witnessing to Mormons type of deal. as I said in my first post I believe God calls to salvation who when where how he chooses. Another words I firmly believe that conversion is a complete act of the Holy Spirit, thus witnessing is a waste of time so I would be the last person attempting to convince anyone of anything, that is not my purpose in life. I hold to Romans 8-9 and thank god for the gift of life each day, I know that I dont deserve it and can only hope that I was not only born to end destroyed. I an not one of those insane folks who feel God wants to save all. I believe as Paul relates to us that essentially it is not for us to say that God is unjust in creating some for destrruction and others for grace and eternal life. I guess I essentially disbelieve free agency.

[Anonymous]

gtb7697 wrote:

I firmly believe that conversion is a complete act of the Holy Spirit, thus witnessing is a waste of time so I would be the last person attempting to convince anyone of anything, that is not my purpose in life. I hold to Romans 8-9 and thank god for the gift of life each day, I know that I dont deserve it and can only hope that I was not only born to end destroyed. I an not one of those insane folks who feel God wants to save all. I believe as Paul relates to us that essentially it is not for us to say that God is unjust in creating some for destrruction and others for grace and eternal life. I guess I essentially disbelieve free agency.

ah. calvinism. should have known. been there, done that, won’t go back. i personally find your last three sentences as reprehensible of a doctrine as anything i have seen in the entire corpus of world religions. seriously: God destines certain souls — the vast majority of humanity — to be created, live, and then be punished to an endless torment? Such an evil being does not deserve worship.

if witnessing is a waste of time to you, then why are you posting a common anti-mormon position on a site entitled “stayLDS”?

all that said… i concur with those who wish you well on your journey.

[Anonymous]

gtb, Again, I also wish you well, but I wish you well somewhere else. If you don’t believe in witnessing, and if all you can do here is “witness” (because you have left the LDS religion and rejected its theology completely and have no desire to “StayLDS”), this is not the site for you.

God speed. May there be a road.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

gtb, Again, I also wish you well, but I wish you well somewhere else. If you don’t believe in witnessing, and if all you can do here is “witness” (because you have left the LDS religion and rejected its theology completely and have no desire to “StayLDS”), this is not the site for you.

God speed. May there be a road.

+1. Now I really do love you, Ray…

The benefit of this little interchange, to me, has been to reconnect why I stay LDS: because at the core, the concept of corporate and personal revelation, as messy as it may be, is a driving and uniquely applied ‘truth’ in the church. I have felt the benefit of that revelation, and I’ve appreciated the imprecision in the process. I can hardly blame the Q15 in making mistakes and believing that they’re receiving revelation — it’s how it works. Those mistakes can be irritating and damaging at times, and the coverups and forced non-thinking tend to drive me into disaffection and disengagement. But the compelling reality: imperfect, flawed humans can receive revelation, and when they do so, we can ascend to the highest heights.

because the process is line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, humans will speculate the rest, because the mind loves certainty. When humans speculate, as BY did with blacks and the priesthood, JS did with king follett and polygamy, as current leaders do in the political arena, the outcome is problematic and wrong and maybe even insane, wacko, fringe… and some of these things harm people for sure. But that’s not the core of the ‘Gospel’. The core is a process leading to the spirit of revelation: and through that spirit, the revelation of Jesus Christ, “I am”, however that may be defined or understood, reveals himself to humanity. And this is eternal life: to know the only true god, and jesus christ whom he sent. this ‘know’ is not knowledge, it’s my personal and direct relationship with the god of my understanding.

This little exchange has really helped me understand that today.

[Author]

Posts