- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Clean Cut has a post today quoting Richard Bushman about how Joseph Smith is presented in the Church. ( http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2010/04/another-reason-i-appreciate-candor.html Quote:Question: “What do you make of the dichotomy we see when people talk about “faith-promoting history” versus “objective” history? What do you make of the question of objectivity in presenting the story of the Church in the Church-among members of the church, as opposed to the academic view of objectivity and that sort of thing.”
Bushman: “Right…some people yearn for this because they think the more idealistic version is wrong and we’ve got to get rid of those illusions. And to a certain extent we do because there are a lot of younger people who grow up and when they find out Joseph Smith did drink a glass of wine once in a while it shatters their testimony and they become very angry that they weren’t told about the “real” Joseph Smith.
“But I will say this. I’ll give this example. We had a young woman, convert to the Church who was in our Ward in Manhattan. Fabulous singer. She also had a very raucous sense of humor, she was always cackling and telling jokes, a little bit raw sort of person. One time at a Christmas program in the Manhattan Ward she stood there in a beautiful velvet dress, slim figure, long dress-I think it was dark blue-singing one of the great Christmas songs, I think it was Ave Maria. And I was quite close to her, I was up on the stand for some reason. And as she sang I looked at her and said “that woman is an angel. That woman is an angel.” A beautiful sound coming from her; beautiful, tall, serene posture.
“So the question is: who is the real person? That angel, or that raucous joke-cracking person? So what I’m saying is that idealized view of Joseph Smith is not entirely wrong. It’s just a way of looking at him in a different way that tells things about him you sort of miss as you go through every time he got beat up and every time he had to move, and all his struggles.
So there’s a face for both of them is what I’m trying to say.I love Richard Bushman! I do agree with this idea that people are multi-faceted, and that taking a conclusive stance is always going to be inaccurate. Yet, I also feel that white-washed history creates major problems (I’m sure Bushman would agree). So, while I appreciate some of the inspirational history for how it captures the high points – deliberately leaving out flaws only creates black & white idealistic thinking. Likewise, if you aspired to be a singer, and all you ever heard was how others you admired sang like an angel, you might feel your cause was hopeless – that you could never be that good. There’s something to telling more of the story that brings realism and hope in. I agree, Hawkgrrrl. I get the fact that the church is focused on uplifting and inspiring, and so the preference is to focus on optimism and the good stuff. I like to focus on good stuff in my life too. But that was always a problem in my home growing up…Don’t Talk about the Bad stuff…Ever! Just bury it or hide it.
As I’m an adult now…I see the damage that causes. Why do that? It doesn’t solve the problems…just procrastinates dealing with them, and usually with interest.
Tell the beautiful stories about Joseph as a brave boy not taking whiskey and telling his mother to leave as they dug into his leg bone with crude instruments. But also mention he drank wine when older and sometimes had a cigar now and again…don’t just tell half the story and manipulate things so that the truth is not being told.
I understand Pres Packer says not all truth is helpful…but if it is still truth…you still deal with it and you grow and become stronger by being able to deal with all the good and the bad in life, the good and the bad in the prophet or the church history, and then internalize that to deal with all the good and the bad in my life without having guilt that I have some bad in me.
The church knows all these historical facts are out there on the Internet. IMO, they are better off facing it and acknowledging it, not threatening members to stay away from such and don’t even look at what is true just because they don’t want to deal with it.
I’m becoming more and more a HUGE Bushman fan!
I believe Joseph Smith was a three dimensional personality, and it’s obviously that some people didn’t get on with him for whatever reason. Even when I have had doubts about the Restored Church, I have always considered him an amazing person. He is one of the most interesting people in 19th century history, not just in America, but everywhere. And I would say that whether he was a true prophet of God, or a complete fraud, either way, he was an incredible individual, with incredible strengths and probably some weaknesses too.
When I think about my parents, I think of people who had major faults in some areas, but I love them. i didn’t love them for their faults, I love them for everything that they did for me, and how they showed love to me. But if they didn’t have any faults, they wouldn’t be human.
I recently watched a documentary on Ted Bundy. Apparently, he was a master at portraying an honorable, clean cut personna that made it difficult for juries and judges to convict him of his heinous crimes. He even joined the church! I’m sure today we know the “real” Ted Bundy. I am in no way comparing Bundy to Joseph…but the point remains that we must be careful not to let “optimism” cloud the reality of a person’s history. I don’t like putting ANY HUMAN on a pedestal like many people do. We are only setting ourselves up for disappointment when we do. I personally (and I’m okay that many here disagree) view Joseph as a brilliant, opportunistic person that sold many people a product based on some dishonesty. Many bought what he sold, and I am one of many who has in my geneology many polygamous ancestors. It was what it was, and I have accepted it.
But what he and others created has evolved to a great organization today that has the position and strength to be a viable force and culture to help many people…and it is. It has core teachings that all people can benefit from. Those that can get past the questionable beginnings, focusing more on the core teachings of Jesus, seem to be able to live more peacefully and without internal conflict.
But that’s just my experience.
Well, if we make someone out to be absolutely perfect, then we set them up to fail. I wish more people would realize this, when they look at historical figures.
Joseph Smith’s life wasn’t as “rosy” as some people present it, but he also managed to inspire a lot of people both in his lifetime, and after. I don’t like everything I’ve heard about him, but I know he must have done some things right. We know he made some mistakes, we shouldn’t deny that. I find the Book of Mormon amazing, whether it is exactly what the church says it is, an ancient Indian record, or a fabrication, in which case, it is still amazing, but for slightly different reasons.
I do think, on the other hand, that there were certain lies or myths made up about him. We know he did some controversial things, but a lot of people would have wanted to get one over on him, or created bits of gossip. Did he translate in a hat? It certainly looks like it, and I don’t have a problem with that. Did he say six foot Quakers lived on the Moon? Well, I’ve looked at this one too, and I’m far less convinced by it, due to the provenance of the story.
What I love about the quote, and the reason I posted it here, is the profound insight (imo) that we are both saints and sinners – uncouth loudmouths and angels of God. It’s that internal paradox that is inherent in ALL of us that I think is most critical to understanding not only Joseph (whether the resulting view is mine or Rix’s, for example) but also for understanding each other. For example, when I tell someone that the key to finding peace is within herself, I’m not saying that she is the problem – or that nobody else played a part of her current situation – or anything else. I’m simply saying that the first step toward peace and happiness is to realize that there are at least two (and often many more than two) ways to view anyone and interpret anything – and peace relies often on being able to let go of one’s former view and realize that SHE, HERSELF, INDEPENDENT OF OTHERS has the ability to choose which view (***or views***) she will accept as “legitimate” or “true”.
The following is my own opinion, and it highlights why I am at peace with Joseph – personally:
Was Joseph a ego-maniac? Sure, at times. Was Joseph incredibly humble? Sure, at times. Was Joseph a liar? Sure, at times. Was Joseph honest to a fault? Sure, at times. Was Joseph an opportunist? Sure, at times. Was Joseph charitable and giving? Sure, at times. Was Joseph a loyal friend – somtimes to a fault? Sure, at times (usually). Was Joseph both incredibly tender AND hot-tempered? Sure, at times. Was Joseph inspired? Sure, at times. Was Joseph a fallen mortal? Sure, at all times. Was Joseph a prophet? Sure, at times.
I’ve studied enough of him to see him as an incredibly complex person – a saint and a sinner – with the heavenly and hellish fighting inside him. He’s me on steroids – so I honor the saint on steroids (the Prophet) and intentionally refuse to judge the sinner on steroids (the man). He usually was not on those steroids, however, and I really have come to love the steroid-less man – and Emma, who stayed with him through the entire roller-coaster ride. I have a hard time explaining how much I admire that woman.
I think it is a bad comparison. Telling dirty jokes and then being able to sing well is not nearly the same as claiming to be speaking with God and then acting very poorly at times. It is a matter of degrees. At some point one outweighs the other. You can claim all the divine power you want and accomplish many good things but if you behave to poorly then all or most of the good is diminished or erased. If I do charity work and am a pillar of the community but then it is discovered I a bank robber does that make it OK to rob banks or at least get me more understanding? It shouldn’t. But say I do charity work and then it is found out I like to go to Vegas and gamble once in awhile that is different. One does not necessarily offset the other although it may not be ideal behavior. Who can say what Joseph was. Prophet, fraud or something in between. He definitely had some talents but I can only look at the facts and it sure would make it allot easier if it did not appear he was fabricating things when the need arose.
Cadence wrote:Who can say what Joseph was. Prophet, fraud or something in between. He definitely had some talents but I can only look at the facts and it sure would make it allot easier if it did not appear he was fabricating things when the need arose.
Again, I think a safe approach is to admire the teachings that work in your life, not the person. If you put your “faith” in the person, you are bound to be disappointed. He/She may have taught some amazing principles that resonate with you…so live the teaching that helps you live better.
With respect Cadence, I don’t feel that behavior that is not ideal has any bearing whatsoever on whether, or not, one is a prophet. Noah being drunk and naked is, IMHO, not ideal behavior. I don’t think that makes him any less a prophet.
I also suppose that one could take the opinion that Moses fabricated the ten commandments when the need arose.
And on, and on…..
In fact, if we are so brazen as to tell God what sort of person He needs to pick for a prophet, we run up against the idea that businesmen and lawyers have traditionally been the least of the candidates.
Guys running around in the desert eating grasshoppers…sure.
Despised tax-collecting jerks like Paul….sure.
Speach-impaired guys who have to get their brother to even speak for them….yep.
Etc..etc..
I don’t think God is a respector of persons…meaning, IMHO, that He could care less about what social stature one may have or what the world might think of his decision. Judging a prophet by how clean-living a person he may be is a very recent phenomenon and, quite frankly, I’m not sure it serves much purpose…..not much positive purpose, anyway.
Ultimately, one has to find out for oneself. The easy way out is to judge by what present society would deem appropriate or not. The problem with that approach is that you may not have any prophets left.
My 2 cents….
Well, I kinda agree…but…let’s look at guys like Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.. Here are guys that claim to be God’s prophets, but had some pretty poor behaviors. Do we look at their “good teachings” and not their behaviors? Is Joseph more like these guys…or more like, say, Moses? There have many people through the ages that have claimed to be God’s spokesmen…and have had many followers. I think the total picture of the person’s life does mean something.
So again, I like to look at the universal, good teachings…love and live them, leave the adoration of the person out of it.
But that’s just me.
Good points Rix, I suppose I would have to look at Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc. and see what sort of good things, or not, that they brought to the world. Using that for a standard, I would say that Joseph Smith was more like Moses.
We also don’t have very complete records of earlier dispensation prophets. Was Moses a gambler? Did Elijah drink too much? Was Abraham covetous? We simply don’t know. It’s my guess that if we did know, we would find these men much more human than our ideals of them portray.
My 1 1/2 cents…
Quote:It’s my guess that if we did know, we would find these men much more human than our ideals of them portray.
I agree – which is why I try not to portray only the ideal – or their ideal qualities.
I think there is a very good reason we have next to nothing recorded about Jesus of Nazareth before his ministry started at the age of 30 –
and more people who knew him and his childhood/adolescence/early adulthood/etc. rejected him as the Messiah than accepted him. There is a profound truth, imo, in the idea that a prophet is accepted everywhere but in his own country – and among those who know at least the outward person more than others. Why is it we seem to make allowances for prophets to behave poorly. We would not accept that in other people with a position of responsibility or authority. If your child had a great teacher at school but it turned out they were practicing animal sacrifice to a stone idol on the side would you not have grave concerns. To simply say that God can pick and choose who he wants to receive revelation is correct, but I expect a little more of those individuals once they are called. It is also a big difference when one is living a less than desirable life and turns it around when called of God. But t is entirely a different thing when one is called but then behaves poorly while at the same time time claiming divine authority. Especially when one is behaving in a way that is contrary to their own teachings or those of God. Cadence, I actually agree with what you’re saying. However, I’m a social studies teacher by inclination and training – and I only can add that pretty much every religious leader who has had lasting impact in this world (and perhaps every leader of any kind who has had truly lasting impact) has been “bi-polar”, if you will, in that regard. I honestly think it might take someone who is at least a little crazy according to the standards of his/her time to do something of lasting import on a global scale. I honestly think that genius and madness are opposite sides of the exact same coin – and what I honor most about Joseph is that, FOR ME, the genius far outweighed the madness. That might not be true for you right now – and it might never be true for you. Perhaps the key for you isn’t changing that particular perspective. Perhaps the key might be as simple as acknowledging the madness, allowing it to exist fully and openly – then choosing consciously to focus on emphasizing the genius for the situation in which you personally find yourself.
That’s not an easy task, especially in the earliest stages of the task, and especially when your own personality is not close to that of Joseph – but it’s an incredibly liberating process. (and it’s the exact same process that any Christian has who analyzes the records we have of Jesus of Nazareth, or any Muslim has who looks at the life of Muhammed, or Jews with Moses, or Lutherans with Martin Luther, or Presbyterians with John Calvin, etc.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.