Joseph Smith: The Hero

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

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.

I think just me is touching on the point I’m trying to make. I admit this is a problem, but only if we continue to keep the realistic Joseph alive. I think the church, whether on purpose or not, is forgetting the real Joseph, and focusing on the mythological hero. When I think about it in this light, I am more inclined to be sympathetic, and accept Joseph in this light. That is to say, despite the obvious irrational, illogical, historically unlikely, physically impossible claims that the story of Christ represents, we gain value from the mythological Christ (and of course most believe in the literal Christ). I don’t know enough about New Testament history, Jewish history, or ancient Hebrew to even guess at Christ’s literal reality. But just the resurrection alone raises my skeptical eyebrows. Nevertheless, I am not going about being upset that every Christian church in the world believes in the literal Christ, and doesn’t give an alternate perspective.

In this same light, I find myself personally caring less and less about whether or not the church fairly represents Joseph, or paints him as a mythological hero. In either case, I can get value from the story. Now whether or not it is fair to the many people who become disaffected when they discover the other side of the coin is another issue that I’m not addressing. I’m not making any statement about the ethicality of what the church does, only observing that Joseph is painted as a mythological hero, and I am learning to accept it in this light.

[Anonymous]

I do think white-washing is a serious problem, and that the church suffers from it, both organizationally (through CES and correlation committee mostly), and individually. It’s a very common human flaw. Look at how people write their journals. Or their performance appraisals at work. It’s downright dishonest! I had a mission companion who became very upset when someone talked about the woman taken in adultery in the NT not being Mary Magdalene because Mary Magdalene “would never have committed such a terrible sin.” This companion had lived with her boyfriend for years before coming back to church and serving a mission at the age of 28, so she felt it was an insult and dismissive of the atonement to say that Mary Magdalene could not have committed such a grievous sin.

What if prophets are able to make as big of errors as any of us? What if they are still working out their own salvation? What if they are not confined to white lies and other trivial sins, but can commit major whoppers. There have been some 70s who have been found to have these types of sins. Personally, I think it is possible. Judas was one of the 12 and basically committed pre-meditated murder in the NT.

I wrote a post on this a long time ago in Mormon Matters: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/24/white-washing/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/24/white-washing/

As to the question of whether JS was an adulterer, the simple answer is I don’t know. I have a few thoughts about it that swirl around my head, though:

– I don’t think he believed he was.

– Oliver Cowdery clearly believed he was and that he was on thin ice in his self-justification.

– Emma was all over the map on this issue. She accepted, she rejected, she was angry, she was conciliatory. JS also clearly did not always tell her the truth about these matters, and even when he did, she sometimes had good reason to deny he had as her feelings shifted.

– His actions were certainly interpreted by his critics this way, and most any average person would see it that way.

– JS didn’t seem to view any other woman of equal or similar status to Emma.

– No one but Emma is proven to have had a child by JS. Most likely suspects were ruled out by DNA testing of their progeny.

– Even if JS was an adulterer, that’s on him. It doesn’t excuse others of it, including me. I’ll worry about my own situation.

– JS’s flaws are relevant but enigmatic.

– JS’s flaws are of little benefit to Sunday discussions which should have application to our lives. What is uplifting to individuals in their quest for becoming better Christians?

[Anonymous]

Emma Smith was a tireless public campaigner against polygamy and stated: “We raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett’s ‘spiritual wife system’, as a scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature”. The document The Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo, signed by Emma Smith as President of the Ladies’ Relief Society, was published within the article Virtue Will Triumph, Nauvoo Neighbor, March 20, 1844. The Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo is also referred to in LDS History of the Church 6:236, 241

I post this here because i believe that Emma Smith actually did more to protect woman’s virtue than many men in the Church (Oliver Cowdry excepted). (Oliver was a tireless proponent of the virtue of women).

At the end of the day, it will be JS who will hear “Praise to the Man” ascend up into the heavens. Emma Smith is not mentioned once in the song. We all choose our heros, but for me, Emma Smith is one.

[Anonymous]

MWallace57 wrote:

Emma Smith was a tireless public campaigner against polygamy and stated: “We raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett’s ‘spiritual wife system’, as a scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature”. The document The Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo, signed by Emma Smith as President of the Ladies’ Relief Society, was published within the article Virtue Will Triumph, Nauvoo Neighbor, March 20, 1844. The Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo is also referred to in LDS History of the Church 6:236, 241

I post this here because i believe that Emma Smith actually did more to protect woman’s virtue than many men in the Church (Oliver Cowdry excepted). (Oliver was a tireless proponent of the virtue of women).

At the end of the day, it will be JS who will hear “Praise to the Man” ascend up into the heavens. Emma Smith is not mentioned once in the song. We all choose our heros, but for me, Emma Smith is one.

I just read about this in “Mormon Enigma.” What a great biography of Emma! Seems like it was her stance and outspokeness against polygamy that got RS shut down in 1844 as well. She does seem to be quite the hero.

[Author]

Posts