- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Over the last few months I have come to a place where I just don’t believe any longer that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or if he was, I don’t privilege him above other spiritual leaders who have claimed to receive divine mandates, or have claimed a connection with the divine. In that vein, I find myself entirely uninterested in the BofM, BofA, and most other Mormon doctrine or theology. I have been studying that stuff all my life, I am interested in exploring elsewhere. Which I guess means that I don’t really believe Mormon theology or doctrine to be superior at this point in my journey, though perhaps I will come to see that it is in the future. How are others of you able to hold on to the idea of JS’s prophetic mantle and if so do you still value him as prophetic for the world or as another adding more to the rich fabric of our existential struggle?
For me Joseph Smith moved into the category of a mystic. My first hero who was visionary was Joan of Arc. This allowed me a lot of room to determine my new Joseph Smith. I took a few years to settle on my opinion. One of the things that helped me was reading
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. From the words in there, I was able to sense that Joseph wasn’t all ego or maniacal. Surprisingly the study presented me with the idea that the church could have used any of his teachings and created a totally different religious paradigm. Once I understood that I felt comfortable recreating Joseph Smith. It’s also helped me not get wound up when traditional members raise him to God status. That is their problem. I don’t think Joseph would like it, so I choose not to add to it. I have selected myfavorite Joseph Smith quotes and will let the rest be between him and God. If Joseph over stepped God gets to take care of it. mom3 wrote:For me Joseph Smith moved into the category of a mystic. My first hero who was visionary was Joan of Arc. This allowed me a lot of room to determine my new Joseph Smith.
I took a few years to settle on my opinion. One of the things that helped me was reading
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. From the words in there, I was able to sense that Joseph wasn’t all ego or maniacal. Surprisingly the study presented me with the idea that the church could have used any of his teachings and created a totally different religious paradigm. Once I understood that I felt comfortable recreating Joseph Smith. It’s also helped me not get wound up when traditional members raise him to God status. That is their problem. I don’t think Joseph would like it, so I choose not to add to it. I have selected myfavorite Joseph Smith quotes and will let the rest be between him and God. If Joseph over stepped God gets to take care of it. Thanks for the response. Follow-up:
If JS is now Mystic status to you, and you would also classify Joan of Arc as a Mystic, who’s teachings or ideas get priority? Or do you prioritize based on your own personal context (JS lived later and you grew up in the tradition he created so you prioritize Mormonism)? Or what works personally for you (this is kind of where I am at and thus leaving the reservation to search out other things)?
(on another tangent, if JS was a mystic, (I’m skeptical), I guess I am also kind of tired of learning from an organization that claims JS’s mysticalness, but doesn’t really produce anything mystical. Another thread for another time…)
I was telling my wife yesterday that if there was proof that JS sacrificed babies (as the most horrible hypothetical example I could come up with) I would still attend church. I told her that I do not attend for him. I do it for the people that I care about, to stay connected to them, to honor the heritage that was passed down to me. I do not see my salvation tied to my participation. That then requires a re-evaluation of my service and the sustainability of my service. I need to have a personal understanding of what I will and will not do.
Now my actual view of JS is that he didn’t kill any babies but istead was involved in some rather novel communal and sexual expiramentation
:thumbup: .I agree with Mom3 that the modern LDS church is loosely based upon his restoration work. How many LDS schism groups are there? Dozens? How many have claim on JS as their catalyst? I would answer that all of them do – just as Methodists, Catholics, and Mormons all have competing claims on Jesus and His legacy.
Quote:If JS is now Mystic status to you, and you would also classify Joan of Arc as a Mystic, who’s teachings or ideas get priority? Or do you prioritize based on your own personal context (JS lived later and you grew up in the tradition he created so you prioritize Mormonism)? Or what works personally for you (this is kind of where I am at and thus leaving the reservation to search out other things)?
To me this is like asking if MLK or Malcolm X should get priority. They both had some good teachings that are good on their own merit. They also have some teachings that you could safely discard or not find very applicable to your life. As a white man I probably do not give either of them as much priority as I would if I were African-American.
I do not give equal attention to Joan of Arc and JS. I live and interact in a community where the experience of JS is relevant. If my loved ones and I belonged to the church of Joan of Arc then that would of course change and the experience of JS (true or not) would not be as relevant for my life.
Much of it hinges on how you define the term prophet, and that’s not an attempt to cop out of answering the question. Many people have faith that he is a prophet and I believe that person’s faith can
makesomeone their prophet. In that sense I believe that a “prophet” is just another medium through which people can find spiritual meaning. Joseph had faith in a peep stone, maybe he actually was able to channel something because of that faith. People have faith in a prophet, maybe they are able to channel something because of that faith. I guess the real issue would be the idea that everyone must find spiritual meaning through prophets or through a specific prophet. In my mind that would be akin to asking everyone to pick up a peep stone and start prophesying. What works for some doesn’t necessarily work for everyone, a prophet might speak to some but not to others.
I don’t think JS should be privileged above others. If the scriptures are to be believed god is no respecter of persons. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. No mention is made of the source. Frankly I’d love to see more inspirational stories from spiritual leaders outside of the LDS faith incorporated into our lessons. Really live the articles of faith.
SunbeltRed wrote:I have been studying that stuff all my life, I am interested in exploring elsewhere.
I can empathize with those feelings. At times I feel like I’ve sucked all the marrow out of the bone that is mormon theology and I start to think that further light and knowledge will only be found in the study of other theologies. I probably won’t be approaching studies by reading the BoM over and over and over again. I try to assess priorities and that means I’m also open to revisit the BoM when interest pulls me back in that direction.
When the material gets stale it makes it harder to receive inspiration. No harm in taking a break from mormon theology and adding things back as you feel you miss them (borrowing from Heber13).
It’s kind of how I imagine learning a foreign language would be. You have your first language as an anchor to give meaning to your study of the second language. Over time you may become very proficient in that second language. There may even be words in your second language that you feel succinctly express a feeling much better than you could have expressed in your first language… but after it’s all said and done, no matter how good you get, you still probably feel more relaxed in your first language. That’s how I tend to view mormon theology. It’s my first language, one that contextualizes any other language that I study. I may find jewels in other theologies that help me articulate my innermost beliefs but I feel more at home in my first language… oh, and I also might devote more time studying a second language than I would studying my first language because I presumably already know my first language. Some study of the first language is still merited though. You’ve got to stay hip with the new lingo daddy-o.
One language certainly isn’t better than another but languages do help us communicate and make connections.
One definition of prophet (said in “I’m starting a sacrament talk” voice) is:
Quote:a person who advocates or speaks in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory.
I believe JS did those things. Note how it doesn’t say that the new beliefs or theories have to be correct.
I have come to love and feel deep compassion for the Joseph that I discovered in my search to figure out who he was. He called himself a rough stone rolling, and I accept that – with some “roughness” much more rough than other roughness. I abhor some of the things he did, but that is true of every truly visionary person I have studied over the course of my lifetime. I have come to love the man and not the caricatures at each extreme.
Also, absolutely study everything else you can. I believe that’s part of Mormonism in its purest iteration – and I have come to love the basics of Mormon theology even more deeply as a result of my study of everything else.
nibbler wrote:
It’s kind of how I imagine learning a foreign language would be. You have your first language as an anchor to give meaning to your study of the second language. Over time you may become very proficient in that second language. There may even be words in your second language that you feel succinctly express a feeling much better than you could have expressed in your first language… but after it’s all said and done, no matter how good you get, you still probably feel more relaxed in your first language. That’s how I tend to view mormon theology. It’s my first language, one that contextualizes any other language that I study. I may find jewels in other theologies that help me articulate my innermost beliefs but I feel more at home in my first language… oh, and I also might devote more time studying a second language than I would studying my first language because I presumably already know my first language. Some study of the first language is still merited though. You’ve got to stay hip with the new lingo daddy-o.Hmm..Interesting analogy. I like it. Thought I might end up going full native and never coming back to my homeland
🙂 I do foresee the possibility of creating a new language that only makes sense to me….Old-Timer wrote:I have come to love and feel deep compassion for the Joseph that I discovered in my search to figure out who he was. He called himself a rough stone rolling, and I accept that – with some “roughness” much more rough than other roughness. I abhor some of the things he did, but that is true of every truly visionary person I have studied over the course of my lifetime.
I have come to love the man and not the caricatures at each extreme.
Also, absolutely study everything else you can. I believe that’s part of Mormonism in its purest iteration – and I have come to love the basics of Mormon theology even more deeply as a result of my study of everything else.
I appreciate that perspective Ray, I really do, I am just struggling with it right now. Perhaps the exploratory journey somewhere else (and by journey I just mean studying and reading and engaging with other ideas) will help me gain greater appreciation for him later.
Good question, SBRed. I struggle a bit with Joseph, too, and I have many doubts about him. However, I don’t believe he was evil or power hungry or looking for fame. I think he was sincere for the most part – but I also believe he made stuff up. I think much of what he taught was actually influenced by the teachings of other religions and philosophies of the time and whatever he didn’t have an answer to he simply made up. I suppose whether I consider him to be a prophet or not really depends on the definition of prophet. I generally define prophet as a teacher, and indeed he was a teacher. I’m not so sure any of his teachings came directly from God, nor do I believe he was necessarily a “seer” or “revelator.”
Our notion of Joseph has generally been given to us by the church. That is, how we view him is for the most part influenced by what we have been taught all of our (church) lives about him and what we have taught is not necessarily accurate. Since my faith transition I have found that to not be unusual. I think part of what I had to deal with during the transition was that what I thought I knew about Joseph may not be true or correct – just like what I thought about God, prayer, and a host of other things.
As was already said, I don’t go to church because of Joseph. Likewise, I don’t see a belief in Joseph as necessary for my salvation – and I don’t think he saw it that way, either. I go to church because it teaches the basic principles of the Gospel of Christ – and when someone isn’t doing that I find something else to read or do.
I received Rough Stone Rolling as a Christmas gift. I am looking forward to finding the time to read it. I think the church would do well to stop romanticizing Joseph (and the other prophets, especially BY and JT) and allow people to see him as he really was. Seeing him as a very flawed individual actually gives me hope, because if he were indeed really a spokesman for God with all of his flaws and God really did exalt him, I think I’m in pretty good shape.
I totally struggle with Joseph the man. He isn’t even that good a person in a lot of ways. But I love his vision of God, which was totally innovative. I love his universalism. I love his response to the theological questions of his day. His sexual experimentation? Definitely not. His egomaniacal pursuit of glory? No. SunbeltRed wrote:
How are others of you able to hold on to the idea of JS’s prophetic mantle and if so do you still value him as prophetic for the world or as another adding more to the rich fabric of our existential struggle?I could probably struggle less with Joseph Smith. I guess my real struggle is with current leadership, essays and curriculum that still paint him as infallible for all practical purposes. His errors, if there really were any, are characterized as inconsequential for us today. I think that not calling error error has serious, bad consequences for us today.
I really liked this post awhile ago at Rational Faiths. “Prophet,” “mystic” and the author adds, “charlatan of God.”
http://rationalfaiths.com/playing-the-ball-as-it-lies/ Quote:Years ago I read that in Nauvoo Joseph would sometimes go down to the docks, dressed in the worst clothes he could find, to meet newly arriving members. Without introducing himself, he would ask them what they thought about this Joseph Smith. To one man who had just expressed faith, he replied, “I am the prophet, but I have worn these rough clothes to let you know that if you expect me to be anything other than a man, that you should get back on that boat and go back to England.”[3] At the time I first read this I didn’t realize how badly I needed to hear those same words.
I’ve finally had that conversation with him. I’ve conceded and will play the ball as it lies. I’ve become more interested in discovering who he was than deciding who he was. Some things still make me uncomfortable, but from my reading of scripture I’m not sure the gospel is as much about being comfortable as I wish it were. I’m not going to waste any more time insisting Joseph be different. God is trying to show me something. He’s trying to split my mind wide open and show me what he can do with the weak things of the world.
Joseph is that crumbly old rock dug out of the ground which, if we are observant and careful, will reveal the life of an ancient sea bed a million years old or give us clues about the age of the earth. He is a stone like many others, but he’s one that I believe God has touched and caused to provide light for our dark journey to the Promised Land. We would do well to remember that while this stone is a revelatory tool, it’s also still a rock and if we set it on the tablecloth it will leave a smudge. If we throw it away because of it behaving like a rock, well, if only the gift of prophecy guaranteed a well-behaved prophet. Prophets are people. That is all they ever have been and all they ever will be. In fact, it seems sometimes the gift of prophecy comes despite behavior rather than because of it.
As far as joseph’s work goes, I’ve read critiques of the Book of Mormon pegging it as a fictional work of obvious nineteenth-century American origin with its anti-Catholic or anti-Masonic themes. I’ve read how the Book of Abraham bears no resemblance to what modern translators see in the available source text or facsimiles. And so on and so on. And these aren’t silly arguments as some apologists would make them out to be. I can’t resolve them, yet I still believe. The Mormon historian Richard Bushman, when confronted by a Christian friend about the problems of the Book of Mormon, replied saying, “Isn’t there some kind of human, existential truth that resonates with one’s desires for goodness and divinity [in scripture]? And isn’t that ultimately why we read the Bible as a devotional work? We don’t have to read the latest issues of the journals to find out if the book is still true. We stick with it because we find God in its pages- or inspiration, or comfort, or scope. That is what religion is about in my opinion, and it is why I believe the Book of Mormon.”[4]
The poet, Alex Caldiero, when asked about his faith in Joseph Smith as a kind of coyote figure or trickster on one hand and a prophet on the other, said that to him Joseph was a “true charlatan of God.” He continued saying, “my testimony… is based on that connection…. Picasso once said that ‘art is the lie that tells the truth,’ and Joseph Smith for me is that kind of person, as Picasso would be. He’s the liar that tells the truth. Now some people have a problem trying to encapsulate those two ideas and make them coexist…, but for me it’s a natural.”[5] I like this description because sometimes I see in Joseph what seems like a propensity to get caught up in telling stories. It’s like he has a kind of uninhibited creativity. Maybe Joseph would be a good example of what Paul called being “fool’s for Christ’s sake.”[6] Maybe it was these very aspects of Joseph’s character, the ones that make us uncomfortable, that God was using as a channel of revelation, like Joseph’s flare for the dramatic or propensity to tell stories. Should it surprise us that God might take some mortal, or even broken, part of us and repurpose it or even redeem it?[7] Is this not what restoration is? This is, after all, what Joseph did with masonry. He took it and repurposed it for the temple.
SunbeltRed wrote:How are others of you able to hold on to the idea of JS’s prophetic mantle and if so do you still value him as prophetic for the world or as another adding more to the rich fabric of our existential struggle?
I think he really believed he was a prophet. And that confidence led others to believe in him as a prophet.
If I can draw an analogy. When I was a missionary, everyone believed that if you were to teach with the spirit, you would have to be righteous. Your thoughts needed to at least achieve a certain threshold of cleanliness, or if not, you had to be in a pretty good state of humility and repentance.
But we had this missionary who was always making lewd comments about girls, mean to people (he was my companion) and generally not what I would consider to be full of character. But he could teach with the Spirit very well. I asked one missionary, who I respected, how this guy managed to teach with the Spirit. This missionary, who I asked this question replied “I think it’s all up here” [pointing to his forehead].
This missionary believed that as long as you had the faith you could do it, or believed you were somehow inspired or prophetic, you could carry that belief into the hearts of other people. I think Joseph believed it somehow. And he was able to convince a lot of people that he was a prophet.
Me, I’m agnostic about it now. I don’t know. Perhaps when I die I will find out.
Ann wrote:Quote:Years ago I read that in Nauvoo Joseph would sometimes go down to the docks, dressed in the worst clothes he could find, to meet newly arriving members. Without introducing himself, he would ask them what they thought about this Joseph Smith. To one man who had just expressed faith, he replied, “I am the prophet, but I have worn these rough clothes to let you know that if you expect me to be anything other than a man, that you should get back on that boat and go back to England.”[3] At the time I first read this I didn’t realize how badly I needed to hear those same words.
I’ve finally had that conversation with him. I’ve conceded and will play the ball as it lies. I’ve become more interested in discovering who he was than deciding who he was. Some things still make me uncomfortable, but from my reading of scripture I’m not sure the gospel is as much about being comfortable as I wish it were. I’m not going to waste any more time insisting Joseph be different. God is trying to show me something. He’s trying to split my mind wide open and show me what he can do with the weak things of the world.
Joseph is that crumbly old rock dug out of the ground which, if we are observant and careful, will reveal the life of an ancient sea bed a million years old or give us clues about the age of the earth. He is a stone like many others, but he’s one that I believe God has touched and caused to provide light for our dark journey to the Promised Land. We would do well to remember that while this stone is a revelatory tool, it’s also still a rock and if we set it on the tablecloth it will leave a smudge. If we throw it away because of it behaving like a rock, well, if only the gift of prophecy guaranteed a well-behaved prophet. Prophets are people. That is all they ever have been and all they ever will be. In fact, it seems sometimes the gift of prophecy comes despite behavior rather than because of it.
As far as joseph’s work goes, I’ve read critiques of the Book of Mormon pegging it as a fictional work of obvious nineteenth-century American origin with its anti-Catholic or anti-Masonic themes. I’ve read how the Book of Abraham bears no resemblance to what modern translators see in the available source text or facsimiles. And so on and so on. And these aren’t silly arguments as some apologists would make them out to be. I can’t resolve them, yet I still believe. The Mormon historian Richard Bushman, when confronted by a Christian friend about the problems of the Book of Mormon, replied saying, “Isn’t there some kind of human, existential truth that resonates with one’s desires for goodness and divinity [in scripture]? And isn’t that ultimately why we read the Bible as a devotional work? We don’t have to read the latest issues of the journals to find out if the book is still true. We stick with it because we find God in its pages- or inspiration, or comfort, or scope. That is what religion is about in my opinion, and it is why I believe the Book of Mormon.”[4]
The poet, Alex Caldiero, when asked about his faith in Joseph Smith as a kind of coyote figure or trickster on one hand and a prophet on the other, said that to him Joseph was a “true charlatan of God.” He continued saying, “my testimony… is based on that connection…. Picasso once said that ‘art is the lie that tells the truth,’ and Joseph Smith for me is that kind of person, as Picasso would be. He’s the liar that tells the truth. Now some people have a problem trying to encapsulate those two ideas and make them coexist…, but for me it’s a natural.”[5] I like this description because sometimes I see in Joseph what seems like a propensity to get caught up in telling stories. It’s like he has a kind of uninhibited creativity. Maybe Joseph would be a good example of what Paul called being “fool’s for Christ’s sake.”[6] Maybe it was these very aspects of Joseph’s character, the ones that make us uncomfortable, that God was using as a channel of revelation, like Joseph’s flare for the dramatic or propensity to tell stories. Should it surprise us that God might take some mortal, or even broken, part of us and repurpose it or even redeem it?[7] Is this not what restoration is? This is, after all, what Joseph did with masonry. He took it and repurposed it for the temple.
I appreciate the effort in this, but it gets back to my original point. To me it seems that only a Mormon would take this approach, one who is attempting to hang on to their faith in JS. I guess I’m not much interested in lugging around a rock that gets the tablecloth dirty. I think instead of being a foundation piece its dragging me down. I’m going to set it down for a while, and perhaps one day I will circle back and it will feel lighter in my backpack. But right now, I’m not much interested in carrying it around.
SilentDawning wrote:I think he really believed he was a prophet. And that confidence led others to believe in him as a prophet.
I think this is probably true. It’s the most plausible explanation for me without attributing malice, and I don’t get the sense that JS was at his heart a mean and malicious person. But again, it gets back to my original point, that I don’t feel a need or desire to privilege JS above other interesting spiritual experimenters or thinkers from history.
I think this is getting to Roy’s point as well. I think it is the church itself, it dogmaticness, its insistence that JS was a perfect conduit, that everything he said is pure doctrine that really bothers me and makes me want to travel somewhere else for a while. If I were able to think about JS like Confucius or Plato I don’t think I would have as hard a time with it. It’s all the baggage of the church and the distortions and inaccuracies that all drag behind the issue that are hard to deal with and hard for me to separate.
Thank you all for helping me think about this in a more thoughtful way. I may decide to discard everything about JS, its an option, and one that I appreciate having now. I’m still undecided, and in fact I may never come to a conclusion, but I think that is part of the journey.
mom3 wrote:For me Joseph Smith moved into the category of a mystic. My first hero who was visionary was Joan of Arc. This allowed me a lot of room to determine my new Joseph Smith.
+1. This is what I think also.
It took me a while to kind of unravel the legendary pedestal I had been taught to put Joseph on, and then realize what mystics and prophets really are, and what they are not, and then revisit Joseph with my new set of eyes to accept him as a prophet.
We’ve had over a hundred years of telling stories about the man and some wonderful things he accomplished. Knowing humans, we embellish. Like Gandalf told Bilbo…some stories deserve to be embellished.
I like RSR to bring the stories back to real life. And to help me remember God works with imperfect mortals. Maybe even me. I don’t have to think Joseph is something he is not. I accept what he is, what he has done, and live my life knowing I can be OK trying to do what Joseph did in trying to make sense of this crazy life, based on how i see things through a glass darkly.
I admire Joseph as a prophet. And the story is way more interesting when it is not clean and neat. The conflict, paradox, difficult teachings, and questionable activities make it a true romantic story full of conflict and victory and hope and disappointment. It’s all in there with JS.
My advice…embrace it all. Just don’t dismiss all the good just because of the repellent or repulsive also exists. Embrace paradox.
My attempt to make sense of JS has been going on for many years, and I’ve finally come to the following conclusion: As others have said here, JS was a visionary man who truly believed his visions. I believe he had some sort of profound experience early in life and was able to parley that into a religious movement. Many of his ideas were revolutionary for his day, for good and bad, while others were absolute products of his day. At present, I lump him in with many other visionary leaders in history, no better, no worse. I’m comfortable and at peace with these conclusions. The problem comes in trying to communicate these conclusions to any orthodox members. From where I stand, the ideas being expressed in this thread alone are so far removed from not only what is taught on Sunday, but what almost all of my friends and family members believe. I can’t speak for the rest of you, but if I were to say these things in SS or RS, I would be met with looks of shock and silence, and I’d be getting a call from the SP later that afternoon. It isn’t just about what’s in the correlated materials, it’s about what the vast majority of members deeply believe. For that reason, I hide these feelings and keep my mouth shut.
In fact, one Sunday during the study of the D&C church history in SS, a member said that we need to remember that JS was only a man and was he was always one of the first ones to say that, and that we have to be careful not to deify him (the discussion had been heading in that direction.) I thought that was a very true and reasonable thing to say, but our SP was in class that day, and he jumped right in and said that we need to remember that JS was THE prophet of the restoration and revere him for that, and that he’s second only to Jesus Christ. He said more, but that was the gist. Everyone nodded their heads and the teacher just moved on after that. I groaned inwardly.
I cherish the free and open exchange of ideas here about JS (and many other topics), but at least in my neck of the woods, there is a huge divide between this and what happens at church on Sunday. I don’t see that divide narrowing anytime soon.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.