Joseph Smith: The Hero

[Anonymous]

The cheesecake I love, the anchovies not so much. I take to my plate what I can, leaving everything else on the platter. It works for me.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the church really has to try to make JS a hero…he pretty much is and talks like Elder Holland are just reaffirming what they truly believe, not trying to make something up. Joseph Smith was a brave man who died for a cause he truly believed in, and even things like polygamy were things he really believed God wanted him to do, and he had to be brave to do it, even if he knew it was difficult.

A hero isn’t perfect…a hero is someone we admire. Just to refresh my memory, I looked up the definition of “hero” on Encarta and found this:

Quote:

1. remarkably brave person: somebody who commits an act of remarkable bravery or who has shown an admirable quality such as great courage or strength of character

a war hero

2. somebody admired: somebody who is admired for outstanding qualities or achievements

heroes of the war against poverty

3. arts: main character in fictional plot: the principal male character in a movie, novel, or play, especially one who plays a vital role in plot development or around whom the plot is structured

4. mythology man with superhuman powers: in classical mythology, a man, especially the son of a god and a mortal, who is famous for possessing some extraordinary gift such as superhuman strength

the Greek heroes

Interestingly, I think Anti-mormons would think of JS as definition of #3…where the church is making up the plot. Extreme TBMs might claim #4 and in church it can sound like we worship Joseph Smith for being “superhuman”…but I think I stick with definitions #1 or #2 and I’m perfectly fine with honoring Joseph for what he did in this way.

[Anonymous]

Just getting around to reading this thread. Appreciate all the different comments. I grew up loving the Joseph that I learned about in primary. But, because of DH’s disaffection, that fairy tale is gone. I am a mormon, always will be. But I have to say that, at this point in my life, I am a little angry with Joseph. Just admitting the anger is making me cry……Things are different now. I am active, and I cautiously believe. But its just different now.

[Anonymous]

Anger is natural when unrealistic expectations are shattered. When emotional understanding replaces the anger, you will know you’re approaching peace.

I’ve found it helps to contemplate your own shortcomings and mistakes – the things you would love to keep hidden from public view (or that of your children) – and then imagine those things being broadcast to the whole world without being able to defend yourself or explain on your own. Chances are you have repented (become a different person than the one in your past), but if you can’t explain anything to anyone . . .

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray. Trust me, I would not want my mistakes broadcast for all humanity, so its not Joseph’s indiscretions that anger me. I would say that those actions disappoint me. I am angry because of the pain I have seen my husband (and so many others) go through, due to a myriad of issues related to Joseph and his life and actions. I have read so many accounts of marriages in trouble, families ripped apart. Its heartbreaking. I have some very specific reasons for believing. But for those who lack such reasons, I have come to completely understand how they become disaffected. I finally reached a point where I let go of holding DH responsible for his own disaffection. I have emotionally packaged up all that blame and frustration and handed it over to my Heavenly Father. I will let Him distribute blame as He sees fit. It just hurt me so deeply to admit I had feelings of anger for the man I was taught to revere (as in hold in reverence). But, at the same time, it has caused my love for my husband to increase in ways I never thought possible. He is my reality. Our children are my reality. My church is just that, my church. But my family is my life.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that the church has reinforced those unrealistic expectations. We give lip service to JS the human, but the only flaws people will admit he had are the ones written in D&C. We put the cloak of God’s command on several of his largest flaws. This has caused a tendency to do the same thing with ALL ancient leaders as well.

This is a problem, IMO. If they killed people, it was because God told them to. If they committed fornication and adultery, it was because God told them to. If they raped and plundered, it was because God blessed them with the plunder.

But somehow, despite the messege getting mixed up, somehow Joseph Smith really is a mythological hero! I can’t even understand it, let alone explain it. But let’s look at it realistically, all the hero’s have a flaw. We are supposed to learn from it, not mimick it. Rather than learning the spiritual and symbolic significance of the myths we are only looking at them as literal/historical truths.

Add that to the false doctrine that a prophet will never lead us astray and the covenant against “ill speaking” and it’s a recipe for disaster.

Sorry, I haven’t followed this thread as closely as I’d like, so I hope I’m not repeating.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

We give lip service to JS the human, but the only flaws people will admit he had are the ones written in D&C. We put the cloak of God’s command on several of his largest flaws. This has caused a tendency to do the same thing with ALL ancient leaders as well.

Gosh, I hate to pile on but the GA’s still do this with themselves. The only “flaws” they ever talk about are the inane lessons they learned as children when they stole the candy bar from the market across the street. Why don’t they talk about the inner-struggle of being married to an addict, or faced with a teenage daughter that was pregnant out of wedlock?

There’s a little bit of a legacy issue with white-washing but I don’t know when enough is enough or when too much is too much.

btw, I don’t think JS was that way as much as we may think. His flaws were just like all of ours. I think posterity did the white-washing much more than he did, imo.

[Anonymous]

I agree Swim. I don’t think Joseph would have liked the white washing.

But I also think that if the brethren DID have the problems of which you speak, then the people would use those as reasons not to follow the same as people struggle with Joseph Smith. It’s a lose lose. I don’t think the problem is in the weakness of the prophets. If we can get it thru our heads that no one, no matter their calling, is human and bound to struggle greatly with any number of trials and if we can get our testimonies centered in principles and Christ, then honestly the flaws of prophets just wouldn’t matter so much.

I just read this scripture from King Benjamin.

Mosiah 2: 10-11

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. But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power to serve you with all the might, mind, and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.”

We don’t listen to King Ben because he was amazing in and of himself. We listen because an angel woke him up in the night and gave him a message for us.

[Anonymous]

Joseph and Emma had nine or ten children, though several were stillborn or died shortly after birth. I think that four of his offspring lived to adulthood. They also raised one adopted daughter (who looked after Emma in her old age). I think of the children of Joseph Smith when we discuss this subject of ‘the hero’. Emma discounted or absolutely lied about her husband’s involved in polygamy. She brought her kids into the RLDS church because of its stance against the principle. When several of her son’s came to Utah later on to convert Mormons to the RLDS church, Brigham was ready. He introduced them to numerous wives of his who had previously belonged to Joseph. He’d had them write their stories of how the principle was shared with them and the pressure applied to marry plurally. Several of them noted the marriages were not just on paper only, but real husband/wife relationships. Those affidavits have come back to haunt us as a church. Joseph’s sons were shaken by the testimonies. David Hyrum Smith, the prophet’s youngest son, returned to the Midwest and suffered a mental breakdown. He spent the rest of his life in a mental institution. Cognitive dissonance can do real damage to those whose hero (fathers & mothers included), become suspect of having lied to them. I apologize if I’m preaching to the choir, I’m a LDS history buff and former teacher (a bad mix).

[Anonymous]

I have always believed in that JS was the prophet of the Restoration. I could be wrong. I have read the BofM and the D & C and there is simply nothing else on earth like it.

JS was a transforming figure in not just American Religion, but world religion. Some have said that the Church he founded is on track to become a major world religion given its current rate of growth.

I know in my heart that I would not want to lose the truths that JS taught. I truly cherish them, nevertheless, I do also believe that JS did practice unrighteous dominion.

Now, this is just my opinion, feel free to disagree with me. JS taught that it was the nature and disposition of nearly all men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose, they will immediately begin to practice unrighteous dominion. My evidence, Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

Here, Emma Smith, the Prophet’s wife and mother of his children was commanded to receive into her household, several of her husband’s other wives.

THOSE SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATE HOW A MAN CAN PRACTICE UNRIGHTEOUS DOMINION – EVEN A PROPHET. There was ABSOLUTELY NO excuse for JS to threaten Emma with destruction if she choose not to abide in polygamy, even if JS claimed this was a revelation from God. That is NOT a revelation, that is a threat. JS was not perfect, no man is. You will find this same type of problem with David (one of the most righteous men that ever lived) and with many other very righteous men.

This from section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of brighteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

It was not Emma who was destroyed, it was Joseph. He had a lesson to learn and he learned it! He had a principle to teach and he taught it. The Lord allowed him to make his mistakes and reap the consequences. This will happen to all of us. It happened to King David, it happened to Father Adam, it happened to Joseph Smith. Men, never, ever use your Priesthood to threaten, frighten or coerce your wives or your children. The Lord gave you life and he can take it away. If you use threats of destruction, it may be the very last blessing you will ever live to give your family. Amen.

[Anonymous]

MWallace57 wrote:

THOSE SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATE HOW A MAN CAN PRACTICE UNRIGHTEOUS DOMINION – EVEN A PROPHET. There was ABSOLUTELY NO excuse for JS to threaten Emma with destruction if she choose not to abide in polygamy, even if JS claimed this was a revelation from God. That is NOT a revelation, that is a threat. JS was not perfect, no man is. You will find this same type of problem with David (one of the most righteous men that ever lived) and with many other very righteous men.

I see your point and think it is one way to look at it…I don’t know if that is the only option to view the heroic tale of Joseph Smith.

Simply from my view, if God instructed Joseph to do those things…how could it be unrighteous? God cannot be unrighteous. The arguments would have to be made:

1) Joseph began assuming God’s will and got it wrong in an honest mistake where he misunderstood the revelations, but still he was mistaken;

2) he completely made it up for his own desires, and began to fall prey to unrighteous dominion;

3) he actually received those exact revelations from God and was implementing it as he was instructed to.

#1 and #3 would not be unrighteous dominion in my view, because they were with intent to obey God’s will (even if #1 assumes he was wrong about it). Unrighteous dominion, as you quoted the scripture, points out it has to do with power and influence over others because of pride, and is contrary to God’s will (argument #2 above…doing it for his own reward and control of others and power).

It is not dissimilar to other prophetic accounts in the scriptures where prophets threaten the people to obey or pay the consequences…which if they are coming from God, are not considered unrighteous dominion, IMO.

To tie this back into the original post…I think the church has chosen the accounts and stories that show Joseph was acting in accord with argument #3 above all the time, and they just leave out the #1 scenarios when he made mistakes, and wouldn’t really believe he was ever acting in accord with #2. And the picking and choosing of the accounts and how to present them to be uplifting to people is what builds a Hero…similar to Davey Crockett or other legendary heroes. They complete some amazing feats, and those are celebrated…but all humans have their private problems and mistakes and those are not included in the hero’s tales that are handed down to other generations.

[Anonymous]

Dear Heber13,

I don’t think that the Law of Polygamy was made up, indeed, I believe that it WAS necessary to literally raise up a generation that would serve God. My ancestors were polygamists. My 80 year old uncle has raised 10 children and served 5 missions. Of all of the descendants, one can count at least 100 missions served all over the world.

What I object to is the wording. JS dictated this revelation and then it was read back to him. He approved. He didn’t edit. That’s RIGHT, HE DIDN’T EDIT THE REVELATION. Now, I don’t mean to be sacrilegious, but even God knows that when you are speaking to a women you have to CAREFULLY choose your words. My great-grandfathers had to learn this when introducing their wives to a new wife, none of this, “you are going to be destroyed if you don’t do this”. Women learn obedience when they feel their husband’s and their Heavenly Father’s love. “Just think honey, you only have to cook dinner every other night and the other wife can do 1/2 my laundry”, Say what? God knows this is how you speak to a women.

Joseph Smith did not commit adultery, bless his heart, but he paid hell, not just by Emma, but by many women. I think he finally just decided to use the fear of God to get Emma to submit – IT DIDN’T WORK. It NEVER does.

To me, JS was teaching all men a lesson about how to love their wives (all of them) and how to teach them obedience. Men who practice unrighteous dominion are frequently killed. Alternatively, many just wish they were dead (just joking). Joseph Smith had a falling out with Emma and he wrote that when he fought with her, he lost the spirit and could not translate or receive revelation. He knew that in order to enjoy the fullness of the Spirit, he had to live in harmony with Emma.

I actually think that God allows men to make mistakes so that they can learn from them.

My ancestors knew JS personally. They all received witnesses that they were to accept a second wives. Their wives received that exact same witnesses. Now, one of the founders of this forum (Stay LDS) is a distant cousin of mine. We both share a great-grandfather, Samuel Rose Parkinson. This ancestor currently has great-great-grandsons on missions right now, and some have recently returned. He also has great-great granddaughters who have served missions. But Grandpa Parkinson had to teach his sons about how to treat women and how to live polygamy. Women were to be treated well. My brothers and cousins were not even allowed to pick a girl up for a date without a full box of Sweet’s Candy Renown Chocolates in hand. This “law” was handed down from the son of Samuel Rose Parkinson.

Grandpa Parkinson also insisted that each wife needed a SEPARATE residence where she could be Queen of her own home. JS didn’t know this. He brought women to the home where Emma lived. Grandpa P. said that the homes should be in different cities, if possible.

Fairness was very important. Grandpa P. would count each and every cherry to make sure that each wife got the exact same number of cherries (he knew that the wives would count and compare). One year, a business associate gave him a turkey for Christmas . . . . which wife to give the turkey to? No, no, you see, Grandpa P. was the one who lived in fear, not his wives, (just joking). Let’s just say that Grandpa Parkinson received his own “revelation” on polygamy and it was just a bit different that section 132.

[Anonymous]

MWallace57:

“Here, Emma Smith, the Prophet’s wife and mother of his children was commanded to receive into her household, several of her husband’s other wives.”

If you are behind the wheel in a speeding car headed toward a brick wall, there is a good chance you are going to be killed. Joseph Smith (for whatever reason) had made polygamy the ‘obedience’ directive of the church. Please look at the number of marriages he contracted in the two years before his death, consider how he was teaching his brothers and other leading men to enter the principle. He was clearly out of control, to the point of having a printing press destroyed which was going to reveal his marriage proviso to the world (a man running for president!). Joseph shut down the Relief Society because church women (Emma included) were demanding that such marriages be stopped.

I wonder if a directive were to be secretly sent to stake presidents and ward bishops today, telling the brethren to immediately enter into polygamy. What would our ecclesiastical leaders do? What would their wives do? Of course, it will fortunately never happen.

Here’s a thought. What if the church had come forth in 1850 (twenty years later). Thus Joseph was killed in 1864, the exodus to Utah happening in 1866 (just after the Civil War). How would the advances brought by the war; railroads, teletypes, U.S. media reporters, etc., have changed the Mormon story. I wonder if the diadem we place on Joseph’s head would have been sparkled less?

As for polygamy, I see a very human element to it (as opposed to Divine). That’s my take, not listened to always, I’ll admit.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

even God knows that when you are speaking to a women you have to CAREFULLY choose your words.

I just have to say that this might be the most memorable line ever recorded in the history of the world.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Joseph Smith did not commit adultery

What about the Fanny Alger deal?

[Author]

Posts