- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Joseph Smith approached both Helen Mar Kimball (14 years old) and Nancy Rigdon (19) to join him as his celestial wife, using in both cases the promise of exaltation if complied with, and something quite onerous if not. Neither woman/girl wanted to accept the ‘principle’. Helen Mar received a lot of pressure from her father, but Sidney was shocked and opposed the ‘principle’. Helen Mar complied, Nancy R did not. I find this fascinating and very informative. It is also nuanced in a way that makes the lesson quite difficult to understand with the normal clarity and certainty expected in church lesssons.
The Church teaches that if we follow the prophet, we won’t be led astray. We are also taught that we are free to choose, and that we should seek divine inspiration. In this rather complicated scenario of Nancy R and Helen Mar, neither desired nor felt it right to comply. Nancy R chose to follow that feeling and rejected Joseph’s offer. Helen Mar chose to comply with the ‘principle’, perhaps thinking this might be for the greater good of promised exaltation for herself and family. Soon, the Rigdons were outside of the mainstream Church, and the Kimballs of course continued in the principle and leadership of the Church. Who was right?
Isn’t there an interesting lesson in this? What would happen if this were openly explored in, say, a Priesthood or Relief Society meeting?
1. Can we justify Joseph Smith’s actions in this case — to use the promise of exaltation or threat of damnation to induce a young woman to become the prophet’s wife?
2. If the prophet asked you to do something you knew was wrong, would you do it? Why or why not?
3. Does the word of the prophet absolve you from inquiring for yourself whether something is true?
4. What responsibility do you have when you are told by the spirit that the teaching you are being taught is contrary to god’s will?
5. Is it possible for a man to be called of God as a prophet yet do some things that are completely contrary to God’s will?
6. Does the fact that Joseph Smith had serious human failings make him something less than a prophet of God?
One cannot read the Bible without realizing that it does not paint its prophets in a portrait of perfection. Peter had profound failings; Paul had a thorn in his side — some personal failing that he could not get rid of. David, the archetype of a good king in Israel, had adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah killed in cover-up. Yet, the Psalms of David are among the most inspired teachings of the Bible, including and especially Psalm 51, the penitential psalm David allegedly wrote after Nathan called him on the Bathsheba/Uriah incident.
Joseph Smith seems to me to be a true Prophet in the grand tradition of the Bible: divinely inspired and profoundly flawed at the same time. Learning that we can fully accept a person’s prophetic authority while rejecting his human failings is necessary, in my mind, if we are to understand how god works through humans. We are never absolved from personal responsibility and revelation. The Lord’s version of the premortal Plan of Salvation expressedly was not for us to blindly obey; but rather, to make choices by studying out the choice, and then prayerfully seeking the spirit to guide us in the Way.
To me, the lesson of Nancy R and Helen Mar is critical. Both made choices. Nancy R, in my impression, made the better informed choice, because in the end, she remained with her integrity intact regardless of the consequence of being thrown out of the church. Helen Mar chose the follow-the-prophet approach against her own will, and was blessed for it by remaining a member; but as one reads her poetry later in life, something is missing — her choice did not make her truly happy in this life.
Obviously, such a lesson would likely not be taught in today’s conform and cover-up climate in the Church. But I think that’s sad, because so much can be learned and understood about freedom, choice, and responsibility, when we look at this example. Doing the right thing is some cases is very hard. The question is what process we go through to do the right thing, and whether in doing right, we’ll immediately benefit thereby. We often don’t, but this doesn’t absolve us from our spiritual and moral responsibility to choose the right. Nancy chose right, in my impression, and suffered censure as a result. Do we have the courage of our convictions to choose the path of integrity and authenticity even if that means censure and potential rejection by the church?
I have no problem using that situation to teach D&C 121 – and I think it would have to be in that kind of context (or to illustrate another widely understood principle) to be successful. I haven’t used it previously, but I would do it in a heartbeat without reservation. Of course, I have the social capital to do so and only get negative pushback from a few individuals. I also would go about it in a way that is constructive and instructive, not combative and argumentative.
I think relatively few people could do it successfully – and doing it successfully would involve more than just preparation, approach and ability. That’s the key to me – that pragmatism dictates only doing it if it can be done successfully.
Fascinating use of that story. Can I come to your class? wayfarer wrote:1. Can we justify Joseph Smith’s actions in this case — to use the promise of exaltation or threat of damnation to induce a young woman to become the prophet’s wife?
I do not know how to justify any kind of manipulation, and in these cases there are many questions I have about what he actually said, did, intended and was told by God to do. These are hard things to understand in the history of the prophet…the secret polygamous acts which Emma did not approve of are among the most difficult to make sense of for me, but I do not absolve a prophet of anything just because he’s a prophet.
wayfarer wrote:2. If the prophet asked you to do something you knew was wrong, would you do it? Why or why not?
I could not do something that goes against my conscience. The difficult thing for me is doubting myself, and if I was specifically asked to do something that seemed a little wrong but there was a greater good, I would have to soul search to know how sure I felt something was wrong. Murder, adultery are examples of something so big, I can’t believe I would go along with something that wrong to me. If I thought it was wrong to abstain 100% from alcohol, but the prophet asked me to for the greater good…I can submit my personal opinions to be part of the tribe. So it depends on the thing being asked.
wayfarer wrote:3. Does the word of the prophet absolve you from inquiring for yourself whether something is true?
Never. But the interesting thing with Joseph Smith is how he would approach fathers and husbands with the proposals, and say it was God’s will. In most cases, people were left to decide for themselves and seek a witness, and many reported receiving the witnesses from God, including angelic visitations…so most people did receive witnesses what the prophet was doing was true. Sydney Rigdon, William Law, Oliver Cowdery were ones that never could get confirmation of polygamy, and all left the church.
wayfarer wrote:4. What responsibility do you have when you are told by the spirit that the teaching you are being taught is contrary to god’s will?
I believe the religion is founded on free agency with the Spirit to guide us, so I place heavy emphasis on personal revelation and what the Spirit is telling me. However, revelation is not a sure thing, so there are lots of questions I would have to go through to get confidence I was interpreting the spirit correctly, and that it wasn’t a bad spirit trying to deceive me. If there was a contradiction…I usually withhold deciding until I can work out the contradiction.
wayfarer wrote:5. Is it possible for a man to be called of god as a prophet yet do some things that are completely contrary to god’s will?
For sure it is possible, but it limits the person called of god and the power they have if they do things contrary to God’s will. In cases like David of the bible, it removes them from their position, and amen to their priesthood. But I return to the question of knowing really what God’s will is. It becomes a matter to decide if I can have faith in that prophet, or if they are a fallen prophet. I think each person has to choose that faith.
wayfarer wrote:6. Does the fact that Joseph Smith had serious human failings make him something less than a prophet of god?
Not to me. It is bothersome to realize all things didn’t work out perfectly in a nice, neat simple story of God told Joseph what to do, Joseph did it, and it was always right. That would be easy to believe in. The fact that it gets messy and complicated and paradoxical just tell me something about life and how God allows things to work, and then, there is more value to me in seeing Joseph in this light, not less.
These are hard questions. I also think there is another layer of complexity when in some instances, like William and Jane Law, that afterwards were told by Joseph it was just an Abrahamic test of faith. Those are difficult for me to know how one should be expected to do something wrong out of faith, accounting God will make it right. Those are toughies!!
Good post, wayfarer!
My answers to your questions are no to #1-4 and yes to 5-6. I don’t believe the topic could be taught successfully and don’t think it should be taught as I don’t think it would serve a useful purpose. By taught successfully I mean to lead to a satisfying and uplifing conclusion that would help someone be happier or live a better life. Nobody expects leadership to require obedience to something that’s wrong so that leaves reassessment of JS and that is a can of worms that no GA wants opened. JS and polygamy are a pretty sorry part of our history and giving him a pass because he’s human like OT prophets is just going to leave more questions than answers in peoples minds. They’d rather think of him “mingling with Gods as he plans for his brethren” than as someone that was threatened with a flaming sword. I just want to say I would love to sit in Ray’s lessons! I do think we are getting closer to the days where subjects such as these will be touched on at some level in church. I think awareness is increasing, and when it hits a critical point these topics will come up effortlessly – not in depth, but maybe to emphasize a point. I also see the “follow the prophet and you won’t be led astray” mantra coming into some degree of modification. It is fairly obvious to any serious inquirer that examples in history demonstrate the most extreme grips on this phrase are not stable. Brigham Young did teach Adam-God, my great-great grandfather wrote in his journal that he believed every word of it. Was he led astray?
GBSmith wrote:My answers to your questions are no to #1-4 and yes to 5-6. I don’t believe the topic could be taught successfully and don’t think it should be taught as I don’t think it would serve a useful purpose. By taught successfully I mean to lead to a satisfying and uplifing conclusion that would help someone be happier or live a better life. Nobody expects leadership to require obedience to something that’s wrong so that leaves reassessment of JS and that is a can of worms that no GA wants opened. JS and polygamy are a pretty sorry part of our history and giving him a pass because he’s human like OT prophets is just going to leave more questions than answers in peoples minds. They’d rather think of him “mingling with Gods as he plans for his brethren” than as someone that was threatened with a flaming sword.
I don’t disagree– the topic would be very hard to teach and perhaps 80% would not be edified thereby, because they don’t know enough about the issue to not be totally shocked by the history. it’s too bad, though, for the 20% that already suspect there is a problem there.To say that ‘nobody expects leadership to reequire obedience’ is not quite right, in my opinion. Nephi was commanded by the spirit to kill laban. Laban was already drunk…did it really need to be done? Yet kill him he did. We teach this story, yet the particulars of it are in strong defiance to law, and Nephi is none-the-less justified. Tamar seduces Juday pretending to be a temple prostitute. It doesn’t get any blacker than that…yet it is imputed to Tamar for righteousness. None of this is easy.
But there is a real choice today: blind, ignorant obedience versus informed choice. Both may end up with the same actions, but in the process, who is justified? Take for example the Levi Savage and the Willie Handcart Company. He warned of the danger, yet he followed the brethren even when they were wrong. He was censured thereby, but he made an informed choice. His was not the path of blind, ignorant obedience, and those who heard what he said and made an informed choice to go anyway also made an informed choice. This is a really good thing, even if the consequences were death and censure.
But to follow blindly is wrong, and to require blind obedience is also wrong. I find the requirement to follow blindly, especially whilst deceiving those who need to follow to be evil and this pattern has its root in satan’s premortal plan.
So, in the actors in the Nancy R and Helen Mar story, who is right and who is wrong? both Helen Mar and Nancy R made choices. I do not blame either for the choices they made. One, however succombed to the pressure of a flaming sword on the prophet, of losing exaltation, or of being assured of exalted glory. That’s quite a manipulation, and hard I would suspect for a 14 year old to handle. As a minor, she may be absolved from the responsibility for her choice, although her father and the prophet do not have such an excuse.
so a question:
7. Is it possible to be blessed in following the prophet on a matter where the prophet is wrong?
8. Does following a wrong instruction by the prophet prevent us from the consequences of the wrong direction?
7. Yes, but not in a simplistic absolutist way. 8. Not at all. We will always bear responsibility for our actions.
Orson wrote:7. Yes, but not in a simplistic absolutist way.
8. Not at all. We will always bear responsibility for our actions.
I agree on both counts. The Martin and Willey handcard companies were blessed with myriad miracles along their way. But this did not prevent the deaths of 1/4 of the pioneers. Blessings flowed by obedience and sacrifice, because, imo, god is infinitely merciful and loving. However, if they stayed, other blessings, like life, might have flowed as well. One can never know. It is clear to me that Franklin Richards and Brigham Young bear responsibility for the programme and the choices made. But the saints themselves and their sacrifice is among the holiest of events in the history of the church. quite a paradox in this.I think the only moral and ethical thing do so is what Levi Savage did. He spoke his experience and knowledge of the risks of the decision, and then chose to support the saints with his essential experience during the way. He took crap for speaking his mind, and was always sort of condemned for doing so, but he did the right thing.
Of Helen Mar and Nancy R, which did right? Is it possible that they both did? or not?
wayfarer wrote:However, if they stayed, other blessings, like life, might have flowed as well. One can never know.
Well, what do you think of Oliver Cowdery or Sydney Rigdon? They followed their conscience, and left the church over these polygamy issues. Were they blessed to not have to trek out west, or would one say they were not blessed to have their names recorded in the history of the church as a faithful follower? How do you know?
Heber13 wrote:wayfarer wrote:However, if they stayed, other blessings, like life, might have flowed as well. One can never know.
Well, what do you think of Oliver Cowdery or Sydney Rigdon? They followed their conscience, and left the church over these polygamy issues. Were they blessed to not have to trek out west, or would one say they were not blessed to have their names recorded in the history of the church as a faithful follower? How do you know?
i have no way of knowing.Oliver left over some very significant issues: the financial manipulation, the convolution of church and state, and the dirty, nasty, filthy affair with Fanny Alger and the polygamy thing. He resigned in parallel with being excommunicated — a dissenter. Never really joined up with the strangites, and was a political pariah when discovered to have mormon connections — returned to the church, rebaptized, and died before he was able to emmigrate with them. Happy? not apparently.
Sydney lived a much longer life, claimed to be the heir to the prophet, and held that belief through the rigdonites and then bickertonites. happy? who knows? he remained faithful to his testimony of the book of mormon regardless.
like i said, ‘one can never know’.
Brian Johnston wrote:Fascinating use of that story. Can I come to your class?
my class or ray’s? I’m not sure I’m teaching this anytime soon. more of a hypothetical…maybe you can have your eqp/hpgl invite me as a guest to your ward
I hope this isn’t off the point. I’ve been thinking lately about the role of Sydney Rigdon after the death of JS.
As I understand succession in the church, upon the death of the Prophet, the first Presidency disolves & the (2) members remaining are part of the quorum of 12.
The new President (Prophet) is the senior member of this quorum 12.
Wasn’t SR passed over being the Senior member of the 12?
Wasn’t BY elected by popular vote to lead the Saints & then declared himself as Prophet?
Just curious.
Mike from Milton.
You crazy idealist…. 🙂 (Been reading some of these threads today like ,Article on J.Brooks on Meridian Magazine)
It hasn’t even been 18 months since the 14 Fs of the Prophet was reread into the church record TWICE during one GC. Coupled with Oaks Two Lines of Communication talk the same day….
Until the prophets stand up in GC and repudiates the 14 Fs and the concepts taught within it, you may as well forget all this idealism. But, that is just my opinion.
Forgive me. I’m slow. (or just old.)
Mike from Milton.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.