Struggling with Joseph Smith

[Anonymous]

Re: the possibility that JS was inspired by God some of the time, but perhaps not other times…

I came across this webpage recently, which is from David Whitmer in 1887. Now granted, he is disaffected and I easily discount some of what’s here for various reasons, but there’s an overarching thing that he describes that I find intriguing and possibly relevant… that JS, and all prophets and leaders (and people), can be influenced at different times by God or the devil. He claims that many of the D&C revelations are not real ones or were not inspired, and though Whitmer never mentions the BoA, certainly that same idea *could* apply as well to the BoA, and yet still mean that Joseph was entirely inspired as far as the BoM and some other things.

I’m a faithful member, so I’m not saying I accept that premise, but I do find it interesting and think it could help to explain some things. Anyway, here’s the link: http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/DavidWhitmer.htm

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I am going to say this carefully, since I do NOT mean at all to elevate Joseph to more than a normal, fallen, fallible prophet – the same kind that is in all our scriptures and less than the caricatured portrayals we have of some:

All we have of the life of Jesus, of Nazareth, are mythologized stories of his birth (imo), one story of when he was 12, and then three years of spotty coverage of his ministry. We have NOTHING of his own, personal, adult life prior to his ministry – which means we have next to nothing for the first 30 years of his life. What we do know, if the record is accurate at all, is that he was NOT accepted in “his own country” (which is instructive, I believe) and that, by every objective, non-religiously-biased measure, his ministry while alive was a complete and utter failure. It lasted and has a legacy for two main reasons: 1) An influential Jewish leader named Saul was converted and became Paul, the Apostle; 2) the Roman Empire adopted the name of Christianity as its state religion, while absolutely bastardizing much of the heart and soul of Jesus’ own ministry.

In my opinion, accepting Joseph Smith for what he actually said he was (a weak, rough vessel of revelation and restoration) is MUCH less difficult than accepting Jesus, of Nazareth, for what is said he was (a perfect, sinless man who was God born as human) – especially for those who know the origins of much of our mythology regarding him. Viewing Jesus as literally what he is said to have been in the Bible is the HUGE stretch of faith; Joseph fits quite well the model of prophetic messiness that characterizes many of our scriptural prophets.

When you add the Mormon definition of prophecy being applicable to all who speak the word of God through inspiration (meaning all of us can be and are meant to be prophets, no matter our mortal shortcomings, weaknesses and sins), Joseph becomes just such a person. The only difference between him and me and every person here is the magnitude of his accomplishments – both good and bad.

This is a pretty interesting comparison. And I totally get this, which is why I believe I can set JS aside for a while and not worry about it.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

Years ago, I was a Joseph-enthusiast. But, anymore, I can’t put that title of ‘prophet’ on him… even fallen prophet. I think it’s just too much of a stretch, and I can’t get myself to stretch that far.

You can’t stretch Joseph far enough to meet your definition of prophet, I understand that. Have you ever considered modifying what a prophet is in your mind to fit Joseph?

Just something to think about. Sometimes if we have a desire for two things to meet our last resort is to bring them together and what we get is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

You can’t stretch Joseph far enough to meet your definition of prophet, I understand that. Have you ever considered modifying what a prophet is in your mind to fit Joseph?

Just something to think about. Sometimes if we have a desire for two things to meet our last resort is to bring them together and what we get is what it is.

Orson, I like that point. It’s a good place to start. I’m just worried that if I stretch the definition of what a prophet is so far that it includes JS, then it would also include just about everybody else walking down the street. And not that that’s a bad thing, but I think the word would basically lose it’s meaning at that point. I don’t know. It’s definitely worth a try, though.

Has anybody else experienced this, where they’ve had to reinvent the meaning of a prophet to make JS fit the description? I’m open to suggestions.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

Has anybody else experienced this, where they’ve had to reinvent the meaning of a prophet to make JS fit the description? I’m open to suggestions.

Sometimes I view the atonement as having reinvented the meaning of “god” to make all of us fit the description. With that in mind it makes performing Orson’s activity a little easier.

I do agree with Orson. It can help to reevaluate long held beliefs, stripping them of old assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

Has anybody else experienced this, where they’ve had to reinvent the meaning of a prophet to make JS fit the description? I’m open to suggestions.

Didn’t Joseph say something like “anyone that speaks with the spirit of Christ is a prophet?” With a definition like that almost anyone could qualify, with conditions. I think “prophet” means different things depending on the context, I certainly think the leader(s) of our church qualify under at least one definition.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’m just worried that if I stretch the definition of what a prophet is so far that it includes JS, then it would also include just about everybody else walking down the street.

Not really – but it certainly stretches it to include a whole lot of people, including, hopefully, occasionally, at least, you and me.

Quote:

Didn’t Joseph say something like “anyone that speaks with the spirit of Christ is a prophet?”

That is, essentially, the definition of prophecy in the LDS Bible Dictionary.

It also is consistent with the Book of Mormon description of Lehi being described as a prophet. After all, he saw a vision – and preached – and led a movement away from the orthodoxy of his day – and not much else. He really wasn’t much of a father, in objective terms, and he condoned the killing of Laban to get a copy of his genealogical record. That didn’t matter, at all, since those other things had no bearing on his position as a prophet.

It’s not so much that we need to redefine prophet or prophecy as much as we need to accept the actual definitions and examples that are in our scriptures and reject the definitions that our all too natural cultures have imposed out of a need for supernatural heroes.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow wrote:

I’m just worried that if I stretch the definition of what a prophet is so far that it includes JS, then it would also include just about everybody else walking down the street. And not that that’s a bad thing, but I think the word would basically lose it’s meaning at that point.

I think you’re on to something…I’d keep pursuing those thoughts and see where that leads you.

It may lose some meaning…like a reptile shedding skin, the meaning lost may only be the shell of what the true meaning is.

What does a prophet(ess) have to be, in order to be a prophet(ess)?

Would we look at and treat everyone else walking down the street differently, if we viewed them that way?

[Anonymous]

Grudunza wrote:

that JS, and all prophets and leaders (and people), can be influenced at different times by God or the devil. He claims that many of the D&C revelations are not real ones or were not inspired, and though Whitmer never mentions the BoA, certainly that same idea *could* apply as well to the BoA, and yet still mean that Joseph was entirely inspired as far as the BoM and some other things.

Excellent point. And I think there is no doubt JS was left at times to be influenced by good and bad. Why wouldn’t he be? Didn’t he have a mortal experience where he needed to learn and discern and grow and progress? Certainly.

I still find this Joseph (fallible and at times wrong and at times on his own and other times greatly inspired)…to be comforting. Because if Joseph had to struggle to figure things out…maybe I’m not so hopeless. I respect that Joseph never threw in the towel. He died for his beliefs (and perhaps because some of his bad choices caught up to him).

He’s not exempt from the mortal experience we are all going through.

The trick for me is…now that I accept that rough stone rolling…how do I discern when he was inspired by good or bad? How do I know if the church perpetuates things that are not from God? That’s for me to figure out.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Grudunza wrote:

The trick for me is…now that I accept that rough stone rolling…how do I discern when he was inspired by good or bad? How do I know if the church perpetuates things that are not from God? That’s for me to figure out.

I have come to feel that it is my moral/spiritual DUTY to find this out on anything that doesn’t feel right (I didn’t bother on GBH’s B’s = “Be grateful, Be smart, Be clean…” – controversial though it was ). Those that seem to want to just say, “I will do whatever those guys say” I feel have turned over their moral obligation to another mortal and forgetting (or not understanding) “the flesh is week”.

[Anonymous]

Grudunza wrote:

I came across this webpage recently, which is from David Whitmer in 1887.

Call me a “man of little faith,” but I am having trouble believing that David Whitmer started a webpage in 1887. :eh: :problem:

Just kidding Grudunza.

I do believe that a person who studies JS would find that he did not seem to know the future (prophecy was not really his strong point) and any communication he had from heaven was not always accessable. At other times he seems to have been very certain about some things that now (from the vantage of 200 years of accumulated evidence) seem to be inaccurate.

I have an easier time defining JS as a seer and revelator. He did seem to “see” things and be a visionary man in the same vein as Lehi. He is also a revelator in that he revealed or brought forth new scriptures/wisdom literature.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Call me a “man of little faith,” but I am having trouble believing that David Whitmer started a webpage in 1887. :eh: :problem:

😆

Roy…it is on the Internet…it must be true.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Roy wrote:

Call me a “man of little faith,” but I am having trouble believing that David Whitmer started a webpage in 1887. :eh: :problem:

😆

Roy…it is on the Internet…it must be true.

Actually it was a dial-up bulletin board. I am old enough to remember those.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

Roy wrote:

Call me a “man of little faith,” but I am having trouble believing that David Whitmer started a webpage in 1887. :eh: :problem:

😆

Roy…it is on the Internet…it must be true.

Actually it was a dial-up bulletin board. I am old enough to remember those.

Usenet or was it teletext?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Usenet or was it teletext?

I remember usenet, but what was teletext? That must be where David Whitmer posted it. :wave:

To change the suject back to the OP, I think the foregoing has been interesting, but the problem comes when we examine what the church says about JS and expects us to believe. This comes directly from Gospel Topics on JS:

Quote:

Through this (FV) experience and many others that followed, the Lord chose Joseph to be His prophet and to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church to the earth.

As Joseph Smith proved his worthiness, he was given a divine mission as a prophet of God. Through him, the Lord accomplished a great and marvelous work that included bringing forth the Book of Mormon, restoring the priesthood, revealing precious gospel truths, organizing the true Church of Jesus Christ, and establishing temple work. On June 27, 1844, Joseph and his brother Hyrum were killed in an attack by an armed mob. They sealed their testimonies with their blood.

For a testimony of the restored gospel to be complete, it must include a testimony of Joseph Smith’s divine mission. The truthfulness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the truthfulness of the First Vision and the other revelations the Lord gave to the Prophet Joseph. In the Doctrine and Covenants we learn, Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it (D&C 135:3).

No matter how much I stretch or twist the definition of a prophet, it will never be this in regard to JS! Just not buying it. So where does that leave me?

[Author]

Posts