- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here, briefly sketched, are four ways we might consider JS and his claims. 1. JS was a prophet of God called in these last days to bring the everlasting gospel to fruition. His actions and activities were pure. The Book of Mormon is what he claimed it was and his revelations are the same. He was called of God. Whatever problems have emerged in his story are not really to be examined because they are of God and so the explanation for them lies in the mystery of God.
2. JS was a ne’er-do-well who concocted the Book of Mormon and the church itself (First Vision, Priesthood, Polygamy, etc.) for personal gain and glory. The whole thing was a sham from the beginning. He was just a great con man. A genius, to be sure, but just a con man in the final analysis.
3. JS was psychotic, delusional. He truly believed he had seen God and Jesus, or had a visitation of some sort, and that he had been designated to bring forward the everlasting gospel in these last days. He believed he continued to receive revelation from God throughout his life and brought together a church that believed in him, with the Priesthood, Polygamy, temples, etc., and all of those visitations from the apostles. But, in this, he was psychotic. Here the analogy would be to Jim Jones and the People’s Temple, among other cult leaders that have existed both in our own time and the past.
4. JS believed he had a vision of God and Jesus, or at least an epiphany of some sort, and that he believed the work he did was of God. He constructed the Book of Mormon from his own imagination but it was nonetheless a God-inspired work. His motivations were pure. If he wasn’t a prophet in the classic sense he was still God-inspired. Like sages throughout the ages he provided wisdom and, in the particular sense, an illuminated appreciation of Christ, which is worthy of following.
I don’t suggest that these are the only four possibilities and would welcome others. But I believe they capture the essence of the problem posed by the “prophet puzzle”–if JS was not a prophet then what was he?, or how do we explain him?
In looking at these examples it seems to me only the first three are probable at all. The fourth (which admittedly I had a problem writing and some of you might think of ways to change), makes no sense because it cannot account for the Gold Plates. If JS was in some way just an innocent, a revelator in the vein of John Calvin or Martin Luther, or even the apostle Paul, then he would not have brought the Gold Plates into the story. The physical reality of the Gold Plates is central to his claim of prophethood.
This is true as well of the first proposition but the difference here is that the first proposition is all about simple faith. You believe his claims or you don’t.
Of propositions 2 and 3–well what of them? Was he just a charlatan or was he a psychotic along the lines of Jim Jones? Is there a middle ground?
I wrestle with these issues because I have a hard time believing that he was simply a charlatan just as much as I have a hard time, any longer, believing he was a prophet pure and simple. But I am very uncomfortable with the notion that maybe he was a psychotic.
5) We hold prophets to an impossibly high standard. My own take:
Joseph was a great but deeply flawed man who lived a flawed but deeply great life. He was a prophet in the Biblical mode – like Moses and Peter, a very complex figure.
I wrote a very short post last September on my own blog, for anyone who cares:
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/09/very-short-tribute-to-joseph-smith.html My take: Joseph was a good man and had a good soul. He wanted to do God’s work. However, he had the impossible task of setting up God’s church on the earth without ever having been a member of it before. Sometimes he didn’t have the appropriate frame of reference so he just did his best. I also agree with Ray, we do hold our leaders to impossibly high standards and forget that in the end they are still just men.
I will go with a mixture of 1 through 4, and add #5 as icing on the cake. 80% #4. He was an God-inspired mystic (a prophet) called to deliver a message. God used JS as a tool, as is, defects and all. I disagree with the comment that he was not a prophet in the “classic sense.” I think he *was* a prophet in the classic sense. Compare him to Moses. We don’t have much information about the day to day details of Moses’s life. We do know he was raised as an egyptian prince (probably a playboy). He murdered an Egyptian overseer and hid the body. Moses got pretty angry at people sometimes. God also got angry with Moses at times. In the end, Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land because of his faults and flaws. Moses created scripture based on his mystical experiences. Look, the dude came down from a mountain with carved stone tablets. He talked to a burning bush, and claimed the finger of God etched them. Is that any more wierd than a peep-stone in a hat?
10% #1. I think the way life is presented, including the challenges is a mystery puzzle from God. Religion and faith are powerful. They don’t work if you don’t believe, even if you know they should not work. They still seems to work…. *boggle* I am not saying I like to follow without thinking. At some level we have to become comfortable with just accepting things as they are from God. I mean there is a reason they are the way they are. Our fun task is to figure out why, and it is often a suprising answer. So we need a little faith. 10% sounds good.
5% #3. Genius and insanity often go hand in hand, especially in the case of sensitive, mystic types of people. I can believe that JS had some amount of organic mental illness. It is possible. I am not saying that for sure. He was obviously a highly functional and charismatic person. I hope I don’t sound too critical. He would not have made a good “prophet” if we was completely normal in all respects. Does that makes sense? This might have affected him adversely at times. It could have influenced him to make some poor decisions too. I believe that God has spoken to me at times. Does that make me crazy or spiritually attuned? It really depends on your views of religion
5% #2. It is possible that he at times used his personal status in the community to further his gain. It seemed like he lived a pretty good life in Nauvoo. I reject the cynical notion that he made up all of Mormonism just as a business proposition. That goes too far. His “revelations” about business (banking, economic development in Nauvoo, etc.) could have been subconsciously motivated by his need to survive and provide for a family at times. It is possible.
Add #5 as icing on the cake. We think sometimes that prophets are no longer people, that they can never make mistakes. If they make one mistake, even dozens then nothing they do is right. Nothing? That is too extreme. The world just doesn’t work that way. I say take the value you want from what JS did as a prophet. If you think he was wrong about something, don’t use it.
Valoel wrote:Moses created scripture based on his mystical experiences. Look, the dude came down from a mountain with carved stone tablets. He talked to a burning bush, and claimed the finger of God etched them. Is that any more wierd than a peep-stone in a hat?
Well Said!!!
Curt, I can certainly feel for your quandary – I have mulled over the same topic and have found it difficult if not impossible to reach a firm “rational” conclusion (which I always love to do). So in the end, or at least for now, I have come to a place where the details are less important to me. Maybe I accept it as a mystery. I try to work with and appreciate (as much as I can) the church for what it is today – and make ‘what it used to be’ or ‘where it came from’ less urgent in my (growing less-absolutist) mind. I think most people would agree that the church is much different today than it was in the 1800’s. I love to try to understand what it was and where it came from (I will always read on the subject) – but from a practical perspective of my life, or how it affects me today, where it came from is not as relevant to me today as it used to be before my crisis. Yes, members can place an impossibly high standard on the leaders. I also wonder if some may place a similar high standard on God – or his designs for us on earth. I like to say God exists by definition – the creator, the source of love, good, and truth. These things do exist, and in my mind God exists because he is the source of them (understanding what the true source is – whatever it is – will get me closer to God). Everything else can be a mystery – many things are “unknowable” at least in the physical sense. Personally I’m okay with that. I feel that if I’m striving to promote life, love, and truth – or everything that is “good” – then I am aligning myself with the purposes of God which will enrich my life and (if the idea caught on) make the world a better place. I’m not sure if this describes the literal “salvation” of the world, or if it could be something else, but I don’t think this line of thought will do any harm.
The puzzling thing to me, and what makes Joseph look like a prophet in my eyes, are all the things that Joseph said that agree with this mindset. “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine” or “Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day saints is truth”, I take that to mean that the gospel is defined by what is actually true – everything else is false doctrine. Brigham young said “Mormonism embraces all truth that is revealed and that is
unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical.” I view the scientific method as inspired – look at all the “miracles” it has brought about. Not that it displaces the need for spirituality, in my mind science merely helps people DO better, while spiritual pursuits help people BE better. Anyway, enough rambling for now.
Valoel, I really appreciate your analysis on this subject. It could be the best I’ve seen so far.
“Look, the dude came down from a mountain with carved stone tablets. He talked to a burning bush, and claimed the finger of God etched them. Is that any more wierd than a peep-stone in a hat?” Sorry I am unfamiliar with how to do the quote thing. I know this doesn’t address all of your thoughtful comments about my post but I want address the quote above first, because for me it strikes at the heart of the dilemma. There is no historical evidence for Moses’s existence. I no more believe that Moses came down a mountain with carved stone tablets than I believe (any longer) that JS actually possessed the Gold Plates except as some prop to fool people. This is part of the unraveling of my faith that occurred as I encountered the problems with Mormonism. So the analogy does me no good.
mr_musicman wrote:My take:
Joseph was a good man and had a good soul. He wanted to do God’s work. However, he had the impossible task of setting up God’s church on the earth without ever having been a member of it before. Sometimes he didn’t have the appropriate frame of reference so he just did his best. I also agree with Ray, we do hold our leaders to impossibly high standards and forget that in the end they are still just men.
Hey, I figured it out (the quote thing). Here too I have a major problem. I don’t believe any longer that JS “had the impossible task of setting up God’s church on earth.” I thought that, for the most part, at this site we were beyond that. If you still believe that Mr. Musicman what is troubling you that would draw you to this site? Just curious.
curt wrote:Hey, I figured it out (the quote thing). Here too I have a major problem. I don’t believe any longer that JS “had the impossible task of setting up God’s church on earth.” I thought that, for the most part, at this site we were beyond that. If you still believe that Mr. Musicman what is troubling you that would draw you to this site? Just curious.
We are all at different places trying to process the paradox of the Church and the life/work of Joseph Smith. Mr. Musicman might have chosen to believe that the LDS Church is in fact the one true church (as we claim), as in “God’s church on earth.” I don’t want to put too many words in his mouth, but latching onto that view is a way to reconcile and rebuild faith — we choose to believe it and reconcile the problems by seeing the Church as developing towards perfection and fullness over time.
He could still have issues with a lot of other things. He could not fully believe his own statements and still have a lot of doubts at times. I kind of go that route personally. I tend to reconcile the paradox by accepting lots of different possibilities simultaneously, and not feeling tied strongly to any as the single right answer. Of course the problem with that is that I never have the right answer… *shrug* who knows, it seems to work for me right now.
curt wrote:valoel wrote:“Look, the dude came down from a mountain with carved stone tablets. He talked to a burning bush, and claimed the finger of God etched them. Is that any more wierd than a peep-stone in a hat?”
Sorry I am unfamiliar with how to do the quote thing. I know this doesn’t address all of your thoughtful comments about my post but I want address the quote above first, because for me it strikes at the heart of the dilemma. There is no historical evidence for Moses’s existence. I no more believe that Moses came down a mountain with carved stone tablets than I believe (any longer) that JS actually possessed the Gold Plates except as some prop to fool people. This is part of the unraveling of my faith that occurred as I encountered the problems with Mormonism. So the analogy does me no good.
Ahhhh, I see. That is a different but similar problem. I know what you mean. Who knows if anyone even in the Bible really existed. *shrug* That is another problem. I was addressing the issue of Joseph being a strange “prophet.” People don’t always think about how strange pretty much all “prophets” have been.
There simply is no proof that Moses existed. There’s no proof the Golden Plates were a record burried by Moroni and recovered by Joseph Smith. One way to deal with that is to focus on the content, decide if it is valuable and useful to you, and downplay the concrete psychology of trying to decide if it is literally true. Think about it. Can you use the Ten Commandments as a moral and spiritual tool if Moses never existed? Could it still contain a heavenly, divine message for you, even if you can’t verify that it is real?
The absence of positive proof for the literal, physical existence of things does not invalidate the moral, spiritual concepts. Stories with a moral value still teach something, even if the characters are fictional. Think of all the great works of literature over the ages.
I don’t know. That is one way to deal with it — suspend the literal to use the symbolic. I try to keep in mind that one possibility is that these things are in fact from God. That is possible.
Great post. I kind of agree with Valoel about what is possible. My own two cents: 1. JS was a prophet of God called in these last days to bring the everlasting gospel to fruition. His actions and activities were pure. The Book of Mormon is what he claimed it was and his revelations are the same. He was called of God. Whatever problems have emerged in his story are not really to be examined because they are of God and so the explanation for them lies in the mystery of God.Notice that this is a description of what his task was, not what or who he was. That’s significant, because when we talk about JS at church, it is usually about his role or task, not a real breathing human being. 2. JS was a ne’er-do-well who concocted the Book of Mormon and the church itself (First Vision, Priesthood, Polygamy, etc.) for personal gain and glory. The whole thing was a sham from the beginning. He was just a great con man. A genius, to be sure, but just a con man in the final analysis.This one doesn’t really work for me. I am not saying he doesn’t have his moments of weakness when he seems to like some of the glory, but overall, that doesn’t seem to be his character. It is certainly not consistent or even the overwhelming theme of his life. 3. JS was psychotic, delusional. He truly believed he had seen God and Jesus, or had a visitation of some sort, and that he had been designated to bring forward the everlasting gospel in these last days. He believed he continued to receive revelation from God throughout his life and brought together a church that believed in him, with the Priesthood, Polygamy, temples, etc., and all of those visitations from the apostles. But, in this, he was psychotic. Here the analogy would be to Jim Jones and the People’s Temple, among other cult leaders that have existed both in our own time and the past.I don’t agree with the Jim Jones/People’s Temple analogy, but being prone to delusions is possible. Maybe all religious people are. What does the term “visionary” mean anyway? Is it a form of psychosis? It could be, and such a thing could be inherited. Or maybe it is “gifts of the spirit,” and those are inherited. Even in the NT, on the day of pentecost, people couldn’t tell the difference. 4. JS believed he had a vision of God and Jesus, or at least an epiphany of some sort, and that he believed the work he did was of God. He constructed the Book of Mormon from his own imagination but it was nonetheless a God-inspired work. His motivations were pure. If he wasn’t a prophet in the classic sense he was still God-inspired. Like sages throughout the ages he provided wisdom and, in the particular sense, an illuminated appreciation of Christ, which is worthy of following.I think it’s hard to read about JS and not see that he believed what he was saying. Certainly, I think he may also have been prone to wishful thinking at times, so I wouldn’t rule that out either. I do think you are right that the physical presence of the plates makes this explanation problematic. As I said on a different site, if he was sincere but deluded, what was in the box? Gwyneth Paltrow’s head? And I agree that we are just too hard on “prophets.” In fact, they were probably all as enigmatic and flawed as JS. The written evidence supports this. At minimum, they were anti-social and delusional as viewed by those who are not visionary. And the same criticisms could come into play for all of them (seeking power, deluded, following their imaginations).
The heart of the question is how much God is involved in this versus how much is the work of man. So many church members like to see God as very personally involved in the minutae of our lives; I don’t really view it this way. But I do think the idea of “draw near unto me, and I will draw near unto you” is a true concept. It’s a fine line, though. If you draw near to God, are you really hearing God or your own internal inspiration or the seed of Godliness within you?
What about the idea that JS was a fallen Prophet? I think that this idea lets a person see the good in the man as well as aknowledge the bad. A number of people that had direct contact with him came to that conclusion. William Law and his group even formed an offshoot in Nauvoo while JS was still alive claiming they were going to hit the “rewind button” and go back to an earlier point where everything was still all true. I think that can work. I observe people sometimes have difficulty with the “fallen prophet” concept when they try to pin it down to a specific point in time. I mean they try to say “on this date” or “up until this doctrine,” he was a completely “true” prophet. After that, he was a completely “false” prophet. That makes things very difficult in my opinion, so I personally go with a buffet approach. I pick and choose, not making that binary split.
Is there a difference between the “fallen prophet” idea and one where a “prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such?” (meaning he can be wrong sometimes, but that does not invalidate the entire body of work).
Personally, the “fallen prophet” doesn’t resonate with me, mainly because I accept the “deeply flawed prophet” description that seems to apply to almost all prophets of whom we have any substantial record. Even Nephi comes across as an arrogant SOB when viewed from Laman and Lemuel’s perspective. For that matter, even Jesus himself was rejected by those who “knew him best” [those of his own country] largely because of how his actions were viewed as “wrong”. I am 100% certain that many people considered him to be delusional and a reprobate, so I am a little careful in how I judge Joseph in discussions like this.
Looking back, I probably wasn’t clear describing how I view it. I don’t go for the “fallen prophet” concept either so much. It’s possible, but I don’t like being stuck to a fixed opinion on it all. This is going to go beyond black and white, beyond shades of gray, right into a rainbow-like view of true and false. I think JS was a prophet, but I am not so concerned about disecting every minute detail of his life to determine when he was a true prophet, a false prophet, a true man and a false man. Not only is it impossible to sort through it all, but I am not sure it is productive. It is way too simplistic to pass sweeping judgment (IMO) and say he was all true or all false, or completely fallen at some point. When I read something by or about Joseph, and I find it valuable, I enjoy it and use it. I have viewed him differently at different points in my life (based on my needs and life experience). Joseph Smith, as a prophet, taught and developed a lot of interesting ideas. I guess I am not so attached to the need for them to be true or not. They only have to be interesting and valuable.
I do entertain this idea as a possibility — that Joseph was drifting too far off course the last couple years, and that is why he was “removed.” I mean that both in a divine sense, and also of course that his decisions and actions finally caused the consequences of so much persecution that he was murdered.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.