Joseph Smith: The Hero

[Anonymous]

As a church, I agree we revere Joseph for the great work he started that we are now a part of. He has become a great Mormon legend and hero. I think the church is more concerned with how to inspire people to come closer to God by relating chosen stories of Joseph’s life, and ignoring others, and that they are less concerned with painting a historically accurate past of the man than they are the work of converting souls to Christ through teachings. It sometimes may be seen as less honest, but I think it is honest to their values and mission that Joseph was an instrument for Christ…not a perfect man who we can historically prove he never made mistakes.

But I don’t know that Joseph is any more revered by Mormons than Abraham is revered by Muslims or Moses is revered by Jews. Wouldn’t you agree?

[Anonymous]

Holy crap!! Maybe I wrote a very poorly worded question.

Let me explain what I’m not asking:

1. I am not comparing Joseph to Christ, or elevating him above Christ, or even claiming that we worship JS or anything like this.

2. I am not claiming that the church doesn’t focus enough on Jesus

3. I am not asking about whether or not JS literally restored Christ’s church

Now what I’m asking:

In much of Campbell’s work, particularly “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” the idea of a hero is put forth. And, even in our own mind, we have an idea of what it is to be a hero. In the LDS church we aggrandize Joseph Smith, that is, we don’t talk about his polygamy, or the plethora of historical conundrums involved in early LDS church beginnings, or the quotes that shed light on the ambiguity JS faced (e.g. “Some revelations are from God, some from man, some of the Devil”). I’m not saying we worship him. I’m saying that he is becoming a hero in Mormon theology. Step back, and look at Mormonism from the context of a mythology. Who are our heroes? Jesus Christ – but we worship him. He’s already a god, and the quintessential hero. Joseph Smith has become the hero accessible to us. Becoming like Christ is a lofty goal, but JS was a normal human being. Becoming like him is more realistic given that he only lived 200 years ago and faced trials like the rest of us.

On the one hand we know JS is flawed, unlike Christ. OTOH, we are slowly erasing the tragically flawed portion (at least in our church lessons). As time marches on, JS becomes less realistic, and more mythical. In our mind, as Mormons, we will always know that JS was imperfect. But we have all but ceased talking about his imperfections. It approaches heresy to question whether or not JS actually saw God and Jesus (which is a perfectly legitimate question given the history).

Many of us (myself included in the past) have felt that because the historical record may not support all the firm truth claims we make, we feel inclined to set the record straight. My point is, that’s not the point of the JS story. The JS story is approaching myth status in its use in the modern day church.

I hope that was more clear.

p.s. just read Heber’s response. Yes, that’s more like what I had in mind. I’m not making any claims that we revere JS more than Muslims revere Abraham. But Abraham is a hero in Islam that definitely is more mythological than literal (IMHO).

[Anonymous]

MisterCurie wrote:

It seems to me that the church largely places itself between the members and the Godhead. The church acts as if it is a gatekeeper to God. The Church teaches that you must be in good-standing in the church in order to be in good-standing with God. It teaches that if you are not worthy of carrying a temple recommend, you are not worthy in the sight of God. And it seems that even in General Conference, when talks are about becoming more Christ-like, they are largely about following the Church’s rules and guidelines, rather than following what Christ really taught. I agree there is a lot of JS worship and current prophet worship and church worship. But I don’t think there is a lot of Christ worship.

Sometimes I think I need to go to a different cafeteria to get a good helping of Christ. The Mormon Cafeteria doesn’t seem to serve much Christ.

Okay, let me divide this up into how I see it:

1. Sometimes our meetings are high on obedience, JS, tithing, obedience, WoW, faith, obedience, baptism, etc. and a bit light on Christ. I think there’s some truth in this and I would like to see more sacrament meetings devoted to becoming more like Christ by talking about his life, than by obeying the tenants of Mormonism (of course we believe we’re becoming like Christ by obeying these dictates since we believe they were revealed by Christ to our prophets).

2. In the way implied by #1 I can see that in a literal interpretation of the church’s teachings that it could seem this way. If you are of the opinion that you must have the endowment, be sealed by the sealing power of the Priesthood, be worthy to hold a TR, etc. in order to obtain the Celestial kingdom, then yes, absolutely the church, by definition (since it administers the ordinances) has placed itself between me and the Godhead (since I can’t actually enjoy full presence of the Godhead outside of the CK). And, even in a more metaphorical sense, if we believe that this church’s spin on rules and doctrine is the right one, then of course it has placed itself between us and the Godhead if I am under the impression that I must obey these rules to have access (which would be true of any religion nearly). But if we’re talking about my ability to pray to God, or to repent, or to learn and emulate Christ’s teachings, then I would say this claim doesn’t hold water as the church never dictates that.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

That is why I really like the Mormon concept of salvation and exaltation extending beyond the traditional restrictions of mainstream Christianity. There is a recognition in it, at what I see as its “pure” core, that allows for honest disagreement that will NOT derail our ultimate end. I realize many members don’t see it that way, but it’s what I love most about the way Mormonism focuses on Christ – extending his atonement / grace to cover (nearly) all of God’s children.

Ray, I truly wish that more Mormons were like you. Today during our EQ lesson I spent well over half the lesson (through comments) just trying to reign everyone in from literal, dogmatic interpretations of D&C 132. There were a lot of wild claims about marriage and what it would be like in the after-life. Too many times these kinds of opinions go unchecked. I, like you, agree that at the root of Mormonism there is much room for honest disagreement that will not effect us in the eternities.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

I’m not making any claims that we revere JS more than Muslims revere Abraham. But Abraham is a hero in Islam that definitely is more mythological than literal (IMHO).

IMHO, I think the Christ we worship may be more mythological than literal as well. But again, dark night of the soul speaking here.

I agree that JS is being turned into a mythical “hero”. As it stated in the PBS special on “The Mormons”, all religions must move past their founding stories in order to survive. I think Hawkgrrl’s Mormon Matters post on Jungian types in the JS first vision story is one example of how we can move past the literal founding “story.” The problem is that Mormonism is such a modern religion that there is a plethora of evidence against JS being the mythical “hero” (evidence of lack of honesty, sexual sins, false translating, etc.) While they are doing a decent job of turning him into a hero within the church, It really makes it hard for the church to move past JS’s flaws and turn him into a hero with these pesky evidences being broadcast across the internet and people having trials of their faith. Additionally you have evangelicals who are unlikely to allow those outside the church to forget about JS’s flaws. Many of the new Mormon historians think it is best to accept and teach these flaws because you can’t hide from JS’s past in the modern era. But Mormonism is such a literal religion, following the new Mormon historians’ advice would result in mass defection within the church. I think the implications are similar to how things would be if we were able to actually identify the tomb of Christ, exhume the body (proving no resurrection), and test the DNA showing 46 human chromosomes, rather than Divine DNA. In my dark night of the soul, I’m leaning that this is probably the reality, but for all of Christianity, at least the physical evidence isn’t overwhelming as it is in the case of JS, since we can’t identify the body and Christianity has moved far enough past the historical Christ that we cannot find the body because it was resurrected (what a lovely paradox).

Euhemerus wrote:

2. In the way implied by #1 I can see that in a literal interpretation of the church’s teachings that it could seem this way.

And the church is such a literal church, that this is exactly what the church teaches and preaches, even in GC. Even for repentance, often the church teaches you need to go to the Bishop to truly repent. Pray to God, no the church doesn’t intervene, unless maybe you think it’s important to pray to Heavently Mother.

Euhemerus wrote:

or to learn and emulate Christ’s teachings, then I would say this claim doesn’t hold water as the church never dictates that.

Agreed, you might do a better job learning and emulating Christ’s teachings if you don’t follow the church’s dictates, since the Church emphasis seems to be on pharisical rules and old testament throw-backs.

Sorry if this post is coming across bleak. I can only say that I am writing things as I see them and I recognize that my view is largely influenced by the status of my faith.

Perhaps a way to try and live up to the ideals of StayLDS, I can ask the following questions I am pondering from this thread, if you don’t mind. How does one reconcile the myth of JS propogated in the church with the historical reality? What course would be most useful for the continued livlihood of the church and improvement of missionary efforts (continuing to preach the myth of JS, teach the historical realities of JS – maybe a RSR approach, try to relegate JS to myth, some other course?)? How can I (or someone else who has experience a trial of their faith) influence the church to adopt a more helpful approach on JS (I believe one of John Dehlin’s reason’s to stay LDS is to be a positive force for change within the organization)?

[Anonymous]

MisterCurie wrote:

The problem is that Mormonism is such a modern religion that there is a plethora of evidence against JS being the mythical “hero” (evidence of lack of honesty, sexual sins, false translating, etc.) While they are doing a decent job of turning him into a hero within the church, It really makes it hard for the church to move past JS’s flaws and turn him into a hero with these pesky evidences being broadcast across the internet and people having trials of their faith. Additionally you have evangelicals who are unlikely to allow those outside the church to forget about JS’s flaws. Many of the new Mormon historians think it is best to accept and teach these flaws because you can’t hide from JS’s past in the modern era.

Well, yes and no. I see what you’re saying here, but in the church we have some pretty important guards against letting the “pesky evidences” get in the way. Many TBMs just “shelf” these problems, or have faith, or dismiss it as intellectualism, etc. etc. In fact, Elder Holland’s conference talk could be seen as nothing more than a reaffirmation of the JS mythological story, with a dismissal of critical evidence. Talks like this, while burning the bridges of many of us, really confirm the traditional JS story. And TBMs will buy that stuff hook, line, and sinker and never second guess!

Mister Curie wrote:

Agreed, you might do a better job learning and emulating Christ’s teachings if you don’t follow the church’s dictates, since the Church emphasis seems to be on pharisical rules and old testament throw-backs.

Well, if I’m being honest here, I really think you ought to listen to GC again. I know it’s hard to change perspective, but try listening to find things that aren’t pharisiacal. I think you’ll find there’s more than you think. In fact, I think what you’ll come to is that Mormon culture is pharisiacal, but that the Brethren are actually teaching something quite different.

Mister Curie wrote:

Sorry if this post is coming across bleak. I can only say that I am writing things as I see them and I recognize that my view is largely influenced by the status of my faith.

No worries, I get it. I have been there (sometimes still go back there).

Mister Curie wrote:

Perhaps a way to try and live up to the ideals of StayLDS, I can ask the following questions I am pondering from this thread, if you don’t mind. How does one reconcile the myth of JS propogated in the church with the historical reality?

Well, what, more specifically are you interested in reconciling? I understand this need to try and “reconcile” things, but I don’t feel this way anymore. I am most certainly interested in the historical reality, and it shapes how I perceive JS and the church. But it doesn’t affect whether or not I get something useful out of church. That’s my reality!

Here’s how I would (and eventually learned) to approach things. Remove all beliefs, preconceptions, and assumptions. Recognize that you, and only you are responsible for your spirituality (given that spirituality is important to you. If not, then you may as well leave the church and religion altogether). Now you have power to decide who, or what you will follow or adhere to. Now look at modern day Mormonism. Is there value in Mormonism as a framework for growing your spirituality? If so, use it, if not, abandon it. If you insist on reconciliation of JS with a literal interpretation of the church, its history, and doctrines you become one of two things: an apologist, or a critic! Both of these, to me, miss the mark!

Mister Curie wrote:

What course would be most useful for the continued livlihood of the church and improvement of missionary efforts (continuing to preach the myth of JS, teach the historical realities of JS – maybe a RSR approach, try to relegate JS to myth, some other course?)?

Why is this question important? Does it influence your spirituality? Does it help or hurt you? Is this just theoretical and you’re asking because you want to know what would be the most beneficial for the organization? If that’s the case, that’s fine, we can theorize, but I don’t see how it will help you if the church changes its missionary efforts. Although I don’t want the church to fail, I’m sufficiently divested that I don’t wrap up my entire spiritual livelihood in it.

Mister Curie wrote:

How can I (or someone else who has experience a trial of their faith) influence the church to adopt a more helpful approach on JS (I believe one of John Dehlin’s reason’s to stay LDS is to be a positive force for change within the organization)?

This is something I have struggled with a bit. Here’s how I divide it up:

What I don’t try to do.

1. preach

2. tell my leaders what they should do

3. loudly voice “reality checks”

4. care too much whether or not the church changes it’s approach on JS (it’s not why I stay LDS that’s for sure). I think (speaking for John here a bit) John is more interested in helping people who get tripped up in this stuff than rather than changing the church’s approach to JS. John, please disabuse me of my ignorance if this is incorrect.

What I try to do:

1. worry about my own spirituality and how I can become a better person

2. carefully, constructively, in a faithful manner bring people back down to reality to let them know that there is another interpretation beside the traditional one. Most of the time I only do this when we have gotten WAY off track.

3. serve where I’m asked as long as it works for me (I love to serve, but my own family and spirituality come first).

[Anonymous]

I suppose I see things different than most.

I revere Joseph Smith…warts and all. Admitedly, I became inactive for several years when I ran across the anti stuff in the early 90’s. But after studying it and coming to grips with the reality of it, I actually embrace our history and see nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, I find it much more enlightening than my original TBM views.

I do, however, wish that the Church would knock it off with the watered-down versions….They have to know that people are going to eventually find the real history and, if it’s in conflict, they are going to have problems.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

I do, however, wish that the Church would knock it off with the watered-down versions….They have to know that people are going to eventually find the real history and, if it’s in conflict, they are going to have problems.

Bruce, if you look at the JS story that the church promulgates as more mythical, rather than literal, do you think what the church is doing is sustainable? What I’m asking is that it seems to me that you take the more literal approach, and I take the more metaphorical approach. Is the church, by creating their own JS myth (so to speak), trying to have it both ways, and is that sustainable? It seems to me, that it is. Yes, there are people leaving, but by employing apologists, and giving talks like Elder Holland’s, they are reinforcing a literal view of the pieces that they feel are important while somewhat ignoring the fundamentalist take on things along with many of the other details. Since people are still joining, and there’s not a mass exodus, it seems like what they’re doing is sustainable. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

MisterCurie wrote:

IMHO, I think the Christ we worship may be more mythological than literal as well. But again, dark night of the soul speaking here.

I agree with this. During my “dark night,” (which I call my “transition” today), the natural question came up “if I don’t believe in the literal claims of Joseph, I have to apply the same questions about the literality of Jesus.” I probably read 20 or so books on the various scholarly approaches to his life. I also started attending many other church services.

I came to be comfortable with the Jesus story as metaphor. Through Campbell’s work, and others, it appeared to me that all religions have borrowed stories from the others…and that what would work for me was the simple concept that the true “heroes” were those that inspired us to be loving. And with the gnostic gospels, it appears that that is ultimately what Jesus taught.

I also found that these other “church’s” I attended (and still attend periodically) teach from the perspective that God is love, no matter how we perceive his physical nature. It allows for friendly dialogue about possibilities, but everybody is very respectful of each other’s beliefs. There is very little “well, this leader said this, so I know it is true for everybody…”

So today, I think there is much in Mormonism that leads us to that goal; and some that doesn’t. I can just shut up about what I don’t “buy.”

But that’s just me….

[Anonymous]

Rix,

I’d be interested in any good book suggestions on the historicity of Christ. . .

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

Bruce in Montana wrote:

I do, however, wish that the Church would knock it off with the watered-down versions….They have to know that people are going to eventually find the real history and, if it’s in conflict, they are going to have problems.

Bruce, if you look at the JS story that the church promulgates as more mythical, rather than literal, do you think what the church is doing is sustainable? What I’m asking is that it seems to me that you take the more literal approach, and I take the more metaphorical approach. Is the church, by creating their own JS myth (so to speak), trying to have it both ways, and is that sustainable? It seems to me, that it is. Yes, there are people leaving, but by employing apologists, and giving talks like Elder Holland’s, they are reinforcing a literal view of the pieces that they feel are important while somewhat ignoring the fundamentalist take on things along with many of the other details. Since people are still joining, and there’s not a mass exodus, it seems like what they’re doing is sustainable. Thoughts?

I think the difficulty here is that in trying to have it both ways, while trying to create their own JS myth, they are simultaneously declaring that the myth literally happened. This places them in a very difficult position when the historicity contradicts the “literal myth.” This makes the leaders look like they are deliberately lying to protect their own power or that they are very foolish. While there may be no mass exodus, information is going to become more available, not less. I can only see things being ultimately sustainable if they let go of the literalness. In the meantime, their emphasis on the “literal myth” makes the church a very uncomfortable place for those that have read the historical account and who are judged as unrighteous and sinful by the TBMs.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

Here’s how I would (and eventually learned) to approach things. Remove all beliefs, preconceptions, and assumptions. Recognize that you, and only you are responsible for your spirituality (given that spirituality is important to you. If not, then you may as well leave the church and religion altogether). Now you have power to decide who, or what you will follow or adhere to. Now look at modern day Mormonism. Is there value in Mormonism as a framework for growing your spirituality? If so, use it, if not, abandon it.

Thanks. I appreciate the insight and suggestions. By “reconcile” I think I meant how do you not allow the historical JS to taint your experience in the church. You offer some great suggestions to answer that question. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

MisterCurie wrote:

Rix,

I’d be interested in any good book suggestions on the historicity of Christ. . .

The first book I recommend is “The Jesus Mysteries,” by Freke and Gandy. It’s not as strong in the historicity department as it is in comaparing the various religions pre-Christ (Paganism, Greek mythology, etc). But it sets a good backdrop for the more scholarly work of Bart Ehrman (I read a few of his books…). I like his “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” book as a good introduction.

Again, I found that just as today, there were many politics in the foundation of Christianity, and it’s almost a miracle that we have some consistency in the various reports of his life.

Let me know what you think!

[Anonymous]

My 2 cents, JS wasn’t matyred, he was killed by a mob of his enemies, most of whom were created by JS’s leadership decisions and not his personal beliefs. I’m with Bruce that the watered-down version isn’t very helpful, members shouldn’t have to go outside the church to find facts about their prophet. Other than that, I think he was brilliant.

[Anonymous]

MisterCurie wrote:

…I think I meant how do you not allow the historical JS to taint your experience in the church. You offer some great suggestions to answer that question. Thanks!

I agree that Eu offered some great suggestions. In the end, obviously I think it does taint – to some degree – your experience in church. It’s going to, even if it’s as simple as coloring your idealistic original views.

What I have found, still studying JS after a couple years of getting into his history – is that he continually takes on different colors and dynamics. Yes, initally some things were quite a shock and he simply went from white to black (so to speak), but after time I think you come to realize that black really doesn’t describe him well at all. He’s human, like everyone else, and the full color spectrum can be seen in him when you look from all the different angles.

So while your experience in church may never be the ‘same’, I for one will argue that it can become personally meaningful again – if you want it to. In the end nobody can give you a reason to visit the Mormon cafe, but if you like the cheesecake then stop in and have some!

[Author]

Posts