Joseph Smith: "Playing the Ball as It Lies"

[Anonymous]

The following post is one of the best I’ve ever read about the complexity of Joseph Smith – and as someone who loves golf but is a lousy golfer, the analogy in the title really works for me.

“Playing the Ball as It Lies” (http://rationalfaiths.com/playing-the-ball-as-it-lies/)

[Anonymous]

I guess what I got from his piece is that he believes inspite of what he knows of JS’s life and behavior. With that level of belief going in, it doesn’t seem to matter what he did or what history says he was. You can make him as complex and layered as you want and you can excuse the things referenced by saying he was only human and make him next to Jesus Christ as John Taylor said in importance and holiness. But I just don’t buy it. People on a first name basis with God Almighty don’t do the things he did. Sorry

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I guess what I got from his piece is that he believes in spite of what he knows of JS’s life and behavior.

I think that is an accurate summary, but I would add that he came to that belief – not that he excused everything based on an unshakeable faith that ignored everything and not that he believed in anything like the same way he used to believe. In other words, he came to believe very differently than he had before he came to see Joseph as a real, deeply flawed man.

Quote:

With that level of belief going in, it doesn’t seem to matter what he did or what history says he was.

I think the first part of that sentence is an unfair summary of what he wrote. He isn’t describing a level of faith “going in”. He is describing an acceptance of a new view he developed coming out. That’s an important distinction.

Quote:

You can make him as complex and layered as you want and you can excuse the things referenced

I don’t think the author “excused” the things he referenced. I think he reached an understanding of them. Again, that’s an important difference.

Quote:

by saying he was only human

He was.

Quote:

and make him next to Jesus Christ as John Taylor said in importance and holiness.

The author didn’t reach that conclusion. He referenced it, but the article itself didn’t validate it – especially the “holiness” part. In fact, that part is in opposition to what the author actually said.

Quote:

But I just don’t buy it. People on a first name basis with God Almighty don’t do the things he did. Sorry.

I respect that view, seriously, but it’s not the conclusion I reach about the truly charismatic leaders throughout history. I think that’s the point of the article’s title – that God plays the ball as it lies, and sometimes the ball that he has to hit is, as Joseph himself put it, a rough stone. As Wendy Ulrich said, “Well behaved women don’t make history.” (As an aside, I really love that quote.) I think the author is saying that Joseph wasn’t the person the author wanted him to be – that he was a ball lying in the rough that God had to smack around to finish the hole – and that the author had to accept that to begin to understand Joseph as a man and not as a caricature.

Personally, I like the analogy – especially since it’s how I see myself, as well, in many ways.

[Anonymous]

I like the concept Ray. But…I really don’t think it is what we teach or believe or want our members to believe.

If the church could just apologize and admit they have made mistakes and don’t have all the answers…just broaden the tent and allow people to question and think and believe differently…throw off the shackles of pharasacial slavery and just become what Mormonism could become…

But, yeah. The guy is right….the church should listen to him and get rid of this assine concept that the “church is perfect.” “The one and only true church…”

Quit lieing. Quit hiding. Quit telling half the truth. Apologize for your mistakes and the harm you have caused people…

Converts will start rolling in enmass. You still have the frame work and the skeleton of a great universal church. Use it before you completely lose it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, cwald, “The Church” is doing far, far more of that recently than it did previously. Many individual members (and families ), including local leaders, aren’t joining in yet, but many others are. The situation today really is radically different than it was at any point in my youth and past adulthood, and I see the same basic message starting to be accepted and even preached recently.

That is a really good thing.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, cwald, “The Church” is doing far, far more of that recently than it did previously. Many individual members (and families ), including local leaders, aren’t joining in yet, but many others are. The situation today really is radically different than it was at any point in my youth and past adulthood, and I see the same basic message starting to be accepted and even preached recently.

That is a really good thing.

Oh yeah. I agree. I just wish the faithful Mormon people would listen to their own prophets.

They kicked me out for being an apostate…but I study and know more about what their prophets are saying and their message than many of the faithful temple going folks who burned me at the stake

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I just wish the faithful Mormon people would listen to their own prophets.

I swear, I almost typed that in my response to you. 😆

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I just wish the faithful Mormon people would listen to their own prophets.

I swear, I almost typed that in my response to you. 😆

Well hell, you would almost think I’d said that once or twice on this site before. I guess I’m starting to repeat myself too much.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, cwald, “The Church” is doing far, far more of that recently than it did previously. Many individual members (and families ), including local leaders, aren’t joining in yet, but many others are. The situation today really is radically different than it was at any point in my youth and past adulthood, and I see the same basic message starting to be accepted and even preached recently.

That is a really good thing.

I don’t know that there really is such a big change. I think we see what we want to see. I don’t think there will be a meaningful change in actual local experience in my lifetime. It’s also incredibly variable based on the lottery of local leaders.

For every one of the ‘middle way’ quotes we use from GAs I could probably find two that counter it. The dominant message that members hear and apply is not a middle way.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, cwald, “The Church” is doing far, far more of that recently than it did previously. Many individual members (and families ), including local leaders, aren’t joining in yet, but many others are. The situation today really is radically different than it was at any point in my youth and past adulthood, and I see the same basic message starting to be accepted and even preached recently.

That is a really good thing.

I don’t know that there really is such a big change. I think we see what we want to see. I don’t think there will be a meaningful change in actual local experience in my lifetime. It’s also incredibly variable based on the lottery of local leaders.

For every one of the ‘middle way’ quotes we use from GAs I could probably find two that counter it. The dominant message that members hear and apply is not a middle way.

I agree. I have been fascinated at how differently Elder Holland’s talk, “Lord, I Believe” can be read depending on your perspective going in.

I think the church will change just as fast as the membership is ready to receive it. IOW – The church will change at about the same pace as general attitudes, generational, and other demographic shifts occur within the membership. In some ways this is slow, but in other ways not so slow. General acceptance of homosexuality in the population at large has moved at lightspeed (from a historical standpoint).

I’m not sure being less exclusive would increase converts – Exclusiveness can be a draw in and of itself and the LDS model plays pretty well to the exclusive seeking crowd.

[Anonymous]

Pres. Uchtdorf (pretty much anything he says) is a good indication of the change I have seen, as are Elder Holland’s “Lord, I Believe” and many others. I’m not saying everything and everyone has changed; that would be naive in the extreme. However, I am hearing inclusive messages and non-McConkie/Benson-esque statements on a much more regular basis than I did from about 2000 and earlier.

The Joseph Smith Papers project, the acceptance of Bro. Bushman and the Givenses, the Revelations in Context material, the changes in the official statements regarding homosexuality, the change at the ward level from PEC being the top council to Ward Council taking its place, the nearly complete lack of official reaction from the top to the proliferation of open, heterodox discussions online (including some notable people not being excommunicated, as they probably would have been 20-30 years ago), etc. – there are lots of things that are important and are changing the way lots of things are being addressed at the top. There are other things that haven’t changed yet that I would like to see change, and the changes I have observed aren’t getting to the end of all the rows, but I think it’s hard to deny the direction of the movement.

[Anonymous]

As I started reading the article, it brought back memories of when it came out that Paul H. Dunn had fabricated some of his spiritual stories. My husband and I loved Paul Dunn. He was our favorite GA that spoke in General Conferences at the time. We bought all his tapes and books. We especially loved his tape on War stories. Even though my husband had never received the spiritual witness of the BofM as Moroni promised, he kept on in the church because of his great respect for Paul Dunn. When my husband found out that some of his spiritual stories were fabricated, it shook him to the core. He said, “If a man like Paul Dunn can fabricate those stories, how do I know if JS didn’t fabricate his first vision or stories. That is when he left the church for the first time and said, I will NEVER rely my faith on a person again. Until God gives me his personal witness of what is truth I will not come back to the lds church. Shows how important our examples are but also how people are a mixed bag and need forgiveness.

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

I will NEVER rely my faith on a person again.

Thanks BN. I think this part is actually a very correct thing that we can learn from a lot of these things we read and learn about.

Revisionist history may want to immortalize Joseph and everything he did and said. But I like the rough stone version of Joseph…more realistic. For some reason, a perfect God chooses to work with imperfect people, and can play it where it lies, and still make it work.

Probably because imperfection is a part of this stage of the plan…it is designed to accommodate imperfection. That includes an imperfect church, IMO.

I don’t expect the church apologize for things people have internalized and interpreted and perpetuated. But I hope to see them more openly articulate truth, when there is evidence correlated material is being misinterpreted. Its the only way we can progress…if we allow more symbolic reading of texts, and let go of literal readings. I am finding more and more people I talk to say things like:

Quote:

To be honest, we just don’t know about some things.

I think that is progress.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, cwald, “The Church” is doing far, far more of that recently than it did previously. Many individual members (and families ), including local leaders, aren’t joining in yet, but many others are. The situation today really is radically different than it was at any point in my youth and past adulthood, and I see the same basic message starting to be accepted and even preached recently.

That is a really good thing.

I don’t know that there really is such a big change. I think we see what we want to see. I don’t think there will be a meaningful change in actual local experience in my lifetime. It’s also incredibly variable based on the lottery of local leaders.

For every one of the ‘middle way’ quotes we use from GAs I could probably find two that counter it. The dominant message that members hear and apply is not a middle way.

I agree. I have been fascinated at how differently Elder Holland’s talk, “Lord, I Believe” can be read depending on your perspective going in.

I think the church will change just as fast as the membership is ready to receive it. IOW – The church will change at about the same pace as general attitudes, generational, and other demographic shifts occur within the membership. In some ways this is slow, but in other ways not so slow. General acceptance of homosexuality in the population at large has moved at lightspeed (from a historical standpoint).

I’m not sure being less exclusive would increase converts – Exclusiveness can be a draw in and of itself and the LDS model plays pretty well to the exclusive seeking crowd.

I was so excited when they used Elder Holland’s talk in priesthood. But they just ended up using it as a measuring stick and them a beating stick.

[Anonymous]

Yup, “teach them correct principles and they govern themselves” is a two-edged sword. It puts the responsibility on individuals to understand and apply, which is wonderful when it happens and maddening when it doesn’t.

I prefer that sort of agency over being commanded in all things, but it still sucks when the correct principle goes right over people’s heads.

[Author]

Posts