Joseph prophet or not

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

But there’s more: as he progressed through his years, he had all sorts of foibles that were most destructive to the traditionalists that tried to follow him. The debacles at Kirtland, in Missouri, and of course his death in Nauvoo were entirely caused by his own hegemony and bad decisions. In parallel to these debacles, two things were going on: (1) a new leadership had to form and be somewhat independent of JS, hence the emergence of Brigham Young who would convert the little cult into a theocratic cult and thence into the distinct, vibrant culture that LDS have today, and (2) joseph had ongoing ‘revelations’ as to the nature of god that opened up a huge number of possibilities. Joseph was coming to quite a non-christian understanding of God, and the world was and is not ready for his understanding, nor were they developed enough by his last speech (King Follett) to make any real sense. He seemed to be trying to dispose of the traditional notions of god and come to something…else. Something much more mystical, yet still ineffible, and Section 88 is his clearest undestanding thereof — if there is such a thing as ‘understanding’ as applied to a mystical experience. BY, on the other hand, took Joseph Smiths final speculations and went whole hog sideways and literal on him — declaring his fantastic speculations as gospel truth and causing all sorts of fun for us today.

So in the end, I would ask myself, “Is Joseph a prophet or not?” and my answer is, yes, the entire Joseph — imperfections and all — is a prophet in the mold of the imperfect yet brilliant prophets of all time.

I think this is brilliantly said — and I believe it.

And I’m not just saying that to be nice because I’m arguing with you in the another thread about Callister and the BoM. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Didn’t Noah commit incest as well?

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Joseph was coming to quite a non-christian understanding of God, and the world was and is not ready for his understanding, nor were they developed enough by his last speech (King Follett) to make any real sense. He seemed to be trying to dispose of the traditional notions of god and come to something…else. Something much more mystical, yet still ineffible… So in the end, I would ask myself, “Is Joseph a prophet or not?” and my answer is, yes, the entire Joseph — imperfections and all — is a prophet in the mold of the imperfect yet brilliant prophets of all time.

Not to be snarky but what does God think about this? If JS was a prophet then he’s telling the world what God is but is He really? How do we know it’s not just his own speculation? The answer for those with testimonies would be that the Spirit has witnessed to them that it’s true and he’s a prophet but that essentially ends any reasoning or argument. But what about those of us who don’t see JS in that exalted though flawed light? What are we supposed to do?

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

Joseph was coming to quite a non-christian understanding of God, and the world was and is not ready for his understanding, nor were they developed enough by his last speech (King Follett) to make any real sense. He seemed to be trying to dispose of the traditional notions of god and come to something…else. Something much more mystical, yet still ineffible… So in the end, I would ask myself, “Is Joseph a prophet or not?” and my answer is, yes, the entire Joseph — imperfections and all — is a prophet in the mold of the imperfect yet brilliant prophets of all time.

Not to be snarky but what does God think about this? If JS was a prophet then he’s telling the world what God is but is He really? How do we know it’s not just his own speculation? The answer for those with testimonies would be that the Spirit has witnessed to them that it’s true and he’s a prophet but that essentially ends any reasoning or argument. But what about those of us who don’t see JS in that exalted though flawed light? What are we supposed to do?

Great question Gb.

I really believe that the gods reveal themselves differently to different people – according to their needs, knowledge and understanding. Example —- I think that Buddhist or Buddhism “is true” – every bit as much as any Christian religion.

It works for many many people.

For me personally, If the LDS church could just get away from literalness and absolute truth and “the one and only…” and the whole authoritarian driving ideology, it would really work for me because I think it has some fantastic deep spiritual truths that help find peace and the gods. JS not withstanding. The guy was a scoundrel, IMO, but I think he tapped into the divine and “revealed” some pretty fascinating doctrine. Is what he revealed “true?” Who knows, maybe, for some people it might be. Some of it might be. I don’t care really. I will find my own truth – by using “the truths” I do believe in, that ironically I learned from JS himself —- go to god for your answers, not the “so called” religious authorities in charge of “the church.”

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

Not to be snarky but what does God think about this? If JS was a prophet then he’s telling the world what God is but is He really? How do we know it’s not just his own speculation?

cwald says this is a good question. I’ve always found it funny to ponder what god thinks if we get our understanding of him wrong.

Let’s assume, for a moment that there is a god out there. An enlightened being — more intelligent, good, wise, loving, and powerful than us poor depraved souls. He has not provided any really coherent picture of him, but asks to accept him on faith. Everyone who has described him seems to describe him a little differently. Which one does he pick and favor? Do you really think that such a being will reward some because they guessed right and punish others because they guessed wrong? Does this even compute?

Now let’s say, for example, that you have a dog who really loves you. You talk to your dog, but your dog, aside from a few command words, doesn’t have a clue what you’re saying. What kind of master would you be if you punished your dog each time he didn’t do what you said? or, just because your dog doesn’t understand your words, but loves you nonetheless, you kill him off because he doesn’t love you in exactly the way you told him to love you?

why do humans think that a superior god would have any adverse reaction how inferior humans understand that which cannot be understood by a non-god mind? The point is we don’t know the mind of god, really, but we can pretty much assume by extrapolation that he doesn’t represent the worst in humanity.

I assume that if you’re here, you at least have some point of view of the middle way, or are at least trying to stayLDS. Was Joseph Smith completely wrong in is point of view to recognize that revelation could be ongoing? When he revealed in D&C 8 that revelation, the same revelation that Moses received, is through inspiration through one’s mind and heart, do you think that the revelatory process is precise, word-for-word dictation? When Joseph Smith and others after him taught that the revelation of the gospel comes line-upon-line, do you think, maybe, that an evolving view or understanding of the nature of god might be in order?

GBSmith wrote:

The answer for those with testimonies would be that the Spirit has witnessed to them that it’s true and he’s a prophet but that essentially ends any reasoning or argument. But what about those of us who don’t see JS in that exalted though flawed light? What are we supposed to do?

I see your point, and you have a good one. The problem is binary thinking here: “its either all true or its the biggest fraud in history.” The reality is that it’s firmly in the middle, as are we all. “biggest fraud in history” is such a superlative, such a narcissistic statement. leaving that aside, is it fraudulent? yes. Is it inspired? in my opinion, yes. How can it be both? Because JS was human, and in the history of almost all the OT prophets, they also did pretty much the same kind of stuff.

Binary thinking is neither useful nor helpful. An unqualified “Only true church” doesn’t work. If I say, it’s the only true church for me, then that’s my opinion and it works. It may be uninformed by other possibilites, but it’s true for me. Actually, I don’t say that at all, because I have been informed of other possibilities, but that’s not critical here.

And what are we supposed to “do”? Why follow the prophet, of course. And what does that mean? It means accept that I, like Joseph Smith am an imperfect human being, and yet I, like Joseph Smith can receive inspiration and do marvellous things. But only follow to a point: I’m not going to emulate his deficiencies any more than I want my children emulating mine.

My point of view, my Way of defining words to suit my point of view, probably aren’t for everyone. But I have found that for now, it works for me.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Let’s assume, for a moment that there is a god out there. An enlightened being — more intelligent, good, wise, loving, and powerful than us poor depraved souls. He has not provided any really coherent picture of him, but asks to accept him on faith. Everyone who has described him seems to describe him a little differently.

JS described him as having a body of flesh and bones, the son also based on his report of the first vision.

Quote:

I assume that if you’re here, you at least have some point of view of the middle way, or are at least trying to stayLDS. Was Joseph Smith completely wrong in is point of view to recognize that revelation could be ongoing? When he revealed in D&C 8 that revelation, the same revelation that Moses received, is through inspiration through one’s mind and heart, do you think that the revelatory process is precise, word-for-word dictation?

You mean like with the report of the first vision or the translation of the BoM or the Pof GP or the sections in the D&C?

Quote:

When Joseph Smith and others after him taught that the revelation of the gospel comes line-upon-line, do you think, maybe, that an evolving view or understanding of the nature of god might be in order?

I don’t recall anything evolving in JS’s description of the nature and character of God.

Quote:

I see your point, and you have a good one. The problem is binary thinking here: “its either all true or its the biggest fraud in history.” The reality is that it’s firmly in the middle, as are we all. “biggest fraud in history” is such a superlative, such a narcissistic statement. leaving that aside, is it fraudulent? yes. Is it inspired? in my opinion, yes. How can it be both? Because JS was human, and in the history of almost all the OT prophets, they also did pretty much the same kind of stuff.

It seems that if we’re to take JS’s word for it that it’s not a fraud but it’s exactly what he said it is and is what he experienced. Trying to make a middle ground seems to be a modern approach to dealing with the problems that have come up.

Quote:

Binary thinking is neither useful nor helpful. An unqualified “Only true church” doesn’t work.

It seemed to work for JS as I believe that was his belief and testimony.

Quote:

If I say, it’s the only true church for me, then that’s my opinion and it works. It may be uninformed by other possibilites, but it’s true for me. Actually, I don’t say that at all, because I have been informed of other possibilities, but that’s not critical here…

And what are we supposed to “do”? Why follow the prophet, of course. And what does that mean? It means accept that I, like Joseph Smith am an imperfect human being, and yet I, like Joseph Smith can receive inspiration and do marvellous things. But only follow to a point: I’m not going to emulate his deficiencies any more than I want my children emulating mine.

My point of view, my Way of defining words to suit my point of view, probably aren’t for everyone. But I have found that for now, it works for me.

It would just be nice to be able to believe because of and not inspite of things

[Anonymous]

I think there is ample evidence that JS understanding of God and Jesus evolved over time —- just by comparing his different versions of the First Vision.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

JS described him as having a body of flesh and bones, the son also based on his report of the first vision.

which report?

GBSmith wrote:

You mean like with the report of the first vision or the translation of the BoM or the Pof GP or the sections in the D&C?

yes i do believe they were ‘mind and heart’. note that JS nearly blacked out before the first vision. Initially he had a different account of the story. I can only go with what he said after that in section 8: “mind and heart”

GBSmith wrote:

I don’t recall anything evolving in JS’s description of the nature and character of God.

they evolved – this from wiki is a good summary:

wikipedia wrote:

Smith’s teachings evolved over his lifetime until his untimely death in 1844. They may generally be divided into roughly four periods, (1) an early period (1820–30) associated with the production of the Book of Mormon and founding of the Church of Christ, (2) a period (1830–33) associated with his effort to clarify and re-translate the teachings of the Bible, (3) a period in Kirtland, Ohio and Missouri (1833–39) that produced the Word of Wisdom, the Book of Abraham, and the early development of the plural marriage doctrine, and (4) a late period (1839–44) in Nauvoo, Illinois in which Smith further defined his views of the nature of God and the millennial theocracy.

I think that it is pretty clear and historical that his understanding of God evolved line upon line and precept upon precept over time.

GBSmith wrote:

It seems that if we’re to take JS’s word for it that it’s not a fraud but it’s exactly what he said it is and is what he experienced. Trying to make a middle ground seems to be a modern approach to dealing with the problems that have come up.

if a person says two different things, then which word do you take. He either did or did not practice polygamy. He said he did not and destroyed the Expositor for an account which turned out to be accurate. So, which word are we take as the ‘truth’? Did he have an epiphany as the first vision (first account, no specifics), see one being, or see two? Do we take him for his word in the book of mormon which says that Jesus is the Father and God is one or shall we take the multiple physical and separate gods approach?

Shall we follow-the-prophet in the case of Joseph Smith? Shall we tell our neighbor’s 14 year old daughter that we have had a revelation that she is to be my plural wife and that her family’s salvation and exaltation depend on it? I’m not trying to be negative here. But the concept of ‘take JS at his word’ is far more complex when you realize the variety of words he said, many of which are in direct conflict with each other and perhaps any valid view of morality we know of.

But in the end, he also made it clear that we are to find out the truth for ourselves and NOT take him at his word, because he said that he isn’t always speaking as a prophet. And THAT is the middle way I speak of.

GBSmith wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

Binary thinking is neither useful nor helpful. An unqualified “Only true church” doesn’t work.

It seemed to work for JS as I believe that was his belief and testimony.

there was of course the final version of the first vision, “Join none of them”. and Joseph taught that the apostasy was complete and required restoration. But he did not say that the other churches were devoid of truth, and borrowed what he would of many of them to paste together his unique version of ‘truth’.

So again, what we refer to today as the ‘one true church’ idea is NOT how JS operated. He was completely syncretic. Hence, the Temple Endowment. Hence, his study of hebrew from a hebrew teacher. He spoke to many religions and brought in people like Rigdon and Bennett who helped him morph the religion. It was fluid and changing.

GBsmith wrote:

It would just be nice to be able to believe because of and not inspite of things

of course it would. and when you find that ideal place where someone actually had a full, coherent vision from god that makes complete sense to humanity, i will be there with you. But it hasn’t happened yet, ever. So in the grand tradition of the bible, we recognize that imperfect, human ‘prophets’ receive inspiration in their mind and in their heart to their understanding and time that can be useful to us if we have faith; and if we accept it with our own minds and hearts as confirmed and enlightened by the Spirit.

That seems to be the Way of these things.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

which report?

With the exception of the one that spoke of God the Father only they all describe God as a person.

Quote:

they evolved – this from wiki is a good summary:

wikipedia wrote:

Smith’s teachings evolved over his lifetime until his untimely death in 1844. They may generally be divided into roughly four periods, (1) an early period (1820–30) associated with the production of the Book of Mormon and founding of the Church of Christ, (2) a period (1830–33) associated with his effort to clarify and re-translate the teachings of the Bible, (3) a period in Kirtland, Ohio and Missouri (1833–39) that produced the Word of Wisdom, the Book of Abraham, and the early development of the plural marriage doctrine, and (4) a late period (1839–44) in Nauvoo, Illinois in which Smith further defined his views of the nature of God and the millennial theocracy.

This doesn’t speak to his description of God and His physical character. He never said that God was anyone other that a person, a glorified man, with a body of flesh and bones.

Quote:

if a person says two different things, then which word do you take. He either did or did not practice polygamy. He said he did not and destroyed the Expositor for an account which turned out to be accurate. So, which word are we take as the ‘truth’? Did he have an epiphany as the first vision (first account, no specifics), see one being, or see two? Do we take him for his word in the book of mormon which says that Jesus is the Father and God is one or shall we take the multiple physical and separate gods approach?

In the first sentence you’re calling him a liar and in the last that he’s having some trouble keeping his stories straight.

Quote:

But in the end, he also made it clear that we are to find out the truth for ourselves and NOT take him at his word, because he said that he isn’t always speaking as a prophet. And THAT is the middle way I speak of.

Trying to get a confirmation from the Spirit about JS and his teachings is a bit tricky since there’s only one answer allowed.

Quote:

So again, what we refer to today as the ‘one true church’ idea is NOT how JS operated. He was completely syncretic. Hence, the Temple Endowment. Hence, his study of hebrew from a hebrew teacher. He spoke to many religions and brought in people like Rigdon and Bennett who helped him morph the religion. It was fluid and changing.

His preaching and the preaching of the missionaries at the time and now is to leave their own churches and to be re baptized since exaltation could only come through the restored church. He may have borrowed from others but the message was and is still the same, we’re right and true and can bring you to exaltation and your current situation will not.

We see JS differently and approach what he did with a different set of beliefs and concerns. I don’t see that I have much more to say and with that I grant you the last word.

[Anonymous]

I looked at the date of my original OP and could not believe it was over 2 years ago. My how time changes things, for me at least. In todays world I view Joseph as brilliant, charismatic and even inspired to some degree but in no way a prophet that communed with God. Not so much because of his dastardly deeds but I can not accept a God that is so wound up in in such an archaic way of communicating to his children. All the contradiction and incoherent ramblings at times just seems so obviously the mind of someone who is not connected to God as opposed to someone who is. I no longer will accept a God who dishes out his word in such a piecemeal incoherent fashion as we get with the history of the church. The God who created the universe can’t figure a better way than rambling prophets and scriptures to communicate his plan? God can just text me a message on my iphone that would be fine with me.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I looked at the date of my original OP and could not believe it was over 2 years ago. My how time changes things, for me at least. In todays world I view Joseph as brilliant, charismatic and even inspired to some degree but in no way a prophet that communed with God. Not so much because of his dastardly deeds but I can not accept a God that is so wound up in in such an archaic way of communicating to his children. All the contradiction and incoherent ramblings at times just seems so obviously the mind of someone who is not connected to God as opposed to someone who is. I no longer will accept a God who dishes out his word in such a piecemeal incoherent fashion as we get with the history of the church. The God who created the universe can’t figure a better way than rambling prophets and scriptures to communicate his plan? God can just text me a message on my iphone that would be fine with me.

So where does that leave you? were there prophets of god at any point in history? Because what I see is that this process of revelation is characterized by “piecemeal incoherence” throughout history. where is the prophet is is not full of contradiction and incoherent rambling?

[Anonymous]

Okay Spock…I get that. Let me ask you wise folks a question — and don’t give me any nuanced bullsh@t answer either on this either to appease the masses… Just call it they way you see it.

Is it okay to say that the COJCOLDS is not true and a ‘fraud” and just another man-made church like all the others, yet/but believe that Joseph Smith is a “prophet?”

I say, absolutely yes. I can believe in JS, so to speak, without having to believe “in the church” as we have it today. What are your thoughts. Please don’t nuance the answer.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Okay Spock…I get that. Let me ask you wise folks a question — and don’t give me any nuanced bullsh@t answer either on this either to appease the masses… Just call it they way you see it.

Is it okay to say that the COJCOLDS is not true and a ‘fraud” and just another man-made church like all the others, yet/but believe that Joseph Smith is a “prophet?”

I say, absolutely yes. I can believe in JS, so to speak, without having to believe “in the church” as we have it today. What are your thoughts. Please don’t nuance the answer.

I think there might be a cleaner position here. To say the COJCOLDS is not true and a ‘fraud’ is still part of ‘all or nuttin’ thinkin’. We need to do two things:

1. get rid of absolutes when it comes to religion. no more all or nothing, and no more ‘only true church’ as a universal principle. I leave ‘only true church for me’ as an option.

2. define terms.

–true=’spiritually valuable, true to the faith’. true in a religious sense has little epistemological meaning — it’s an indicator of direction or value.

–prophet=’one who receives god’s word and we accept as the one who communicates it to us’. A prophet is not = jesus christ, that means, s/he does not have to be flawless, as consistent with ancient tradition.

–church=’an organization under the prophet that provides structure to religious discussion’.

If we abide by these simple rules, then can we not all worship together? Cannot the true believer share spiritual experience, strength, and hope with the one who has a more liberal understanding of god? i see such value in the community of saints. such value. Such a loss if we continue down the path of absolutes.

I went to the mormondialogue forum today to find some materials, and that seems to be more filled with true believers, or defenders of the faith than either here or nom. Had to sign in, and as i perused the posts, there were comments on John Dehlin’s study. i found a lot of derision. absolutes do not foster inclusiveness. not to judge, but the extremely in and the extremely out seem to be harder to deal with, leaving the middle a pretty lonely place. oh that i wish it weren’t so.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Cadence wrote:

I looked at the date of my original OP and could not believe it was over 2 years ago. My how time changes things, for me at least. In todays world I view Joseph as brilliant, charismatic and even inspired to some degree but in no way a prophet that communed with God. Not so much because of his dastardly deeds but I can not accept a God that is so wound up in in such an archaic way of communicating to his children. All the contradiction and incoherent ramblings at times just seems so obviously the mind of someone who is not connected to God as opposed to someone who is. I no longer will accept a God who dishes out his word in such a piecemeal incoherent fashion as we get with the history of the church. The God who created the universe can’t figure a better way than rambling prophets and scriptures to communicate his plan? God can just text me a message on my iphone that would be fine with me.

So where does that leave you? were there prophets of god at any point in history? Because what I see is that this process of revelation is characterized by “piecemeal incoherence” throughout history. where is the prophet is is not full of contradiction and incoherent rambling?

I see all prophets old and new in about the same way. They each have their own set of skills, they all tend to be leaders of a sort, but they all tend to talk a lot and say very little that is coherent. I am not sure why we attribute this pattern of communication to God. What we have learned about the universe and our world just by observation and testing theories is far greater than the sum of all what the prophets have taught us about something as simple as what heaven is really like, which should be right up their ally. Sure they are great at delivering commandments and setting up organized structures to get people to listen to them, but for all their claims of being divine I ask myself what do they really produce that is productive and answer questions. If you look at Joseph it could be argued he caused a significant amount of death, pain and destruction to his followers. Just seems such a strange way for an all knowing God to communicate his will.

In all that I am not an atheist. I believe God exists, I just think men try to define the undefinable hence they ramble and talk incoherently, at least when they claim they are speaking for God.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Okay Spock…I get that. Let me ask you wise folks a question — and don’t give me any nuanced bullsh@t answer either on this either to appease the masses… Just call it they way you see it.

Is it okay to say that the COJCOLDS is not true and a ‘fraud” and just another man-made church like all the others, yet/but believe that Joseph Smith is a “prophet?”

I say, absolutely yes. I can believe in JS, so to speak, without having to believe “in the church” as we have it today. What are your thoughts. Please don’t nuance the answer.

Based on empirical evidence I would have to say the church we have today is a fraud. When you put all the pieces together I am just not sure how you can see it any other way. I certainly could be wrong but then again that leaves us with a trickster God who misdirects and evades direct answers in lieu of partial truths and nuanced answers. That I just can not bear anymore.

So could Joseph be a prophet still? Sure he can. JUst as much as anyone else can be a prophet. If you believe he gave you some real answers about your life’s meaning and he answers some vital questions for you then yes he is your prophet. Just like Gandhi, or Buddha, or George Washington for heavens sake. Maybe God touched them all in some way. Maybe someone can be a prophet for some but not for others, I really do not know. I can just look at the evidence and see what I see. Joseph caused a great amount of heartache and pain and suffering to many during his time, and its effects linger still. So do you want him to be your prophet?

[Author]

Posts