- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
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.
I often wonder that. I’m not sure it was openly taught when I was growing up, but I am certain there was speculation on this notion.
I have wondered about that too – if Joseph was getting too far off course for the good of the church. In reading more about Brigham Young recently (Leonard Arrington’s American Moses) I can’t help but think Joseph would have handled some things differently than Brigham, and personally I probably would have preferred Joseph’s approach. According to William Marks Joseph was softening considerably on polygamy at the end of his life. Of course we’ll never know for sure what he was thinking because he didn’t live long enough to demonstrate it, but there is some evidence that he was moving away from the other “less public” (or secret) activities at the end. Some say he gave instructions to not wear temple garments any more. That quote is tenuous I agree, but the fact is that he, Hyrum, and John Taylor were not wearing theirs in Carthage. You could rightly argue that he was simply afraid that in captivity they might be used against him, but again – we’ll never know for sure. I agree with the main points in this thread, that if we look for the things that are of spiritual value, and take those things for our own personal benefit and growth – then we can’t help but be enriched. We are in the drivers seat toward our own “eternal life”, I can’t help but believe that is what God would want anyway.
I love this quote by Leonard Arrington, I’ve posted it before but it fits well here so I’ll paste it in again:
Arrington addressed the subject of the miraculous foundational events of our Church and asks the question
“can one accept all of the miraculous events that surrounded the restoration of the gospel?”(This can relate to Joseph’s “prophetic mission”) He then explains “that truth may be expressed not only through science and abstract reason but also through stories, testimonies, and narratives of personal experience; not only through erudite scholarship but also through poetry, drama, and historical novels. …[Religious myth] is an account that may or may not have a determinable basis of fact or natural explanation. The truth of a myth is beyond empirical or historical accessibility. Examples are the Christian story of the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and the creation of the world as described in the book of Genesis. These are ways of explaining events or truths having religious significance that may be either symbolical or historical.”He concludes “I was never preoccupied with the question of the historicity of Joseph Smith’s first vision (though I find the evidence overwhelming that it did occur) or of the many reported epiphanies in Mormon, Christian, or Hebrew history. I am prepared to accept them as historical or as metaphorical, as symbolical, or as precisely what happened. That they convey religious truth is the essential issue, and of this I have never had any doubt.”(Reflections of a Mormon Historian p.165) Yes, this may be different from the mainstream church’s views, but I hold on to the idea that the true gospel is the actual truth, everything else is “false doctrine”. No, I don’t pretend to know for sure myself what is the “actual truth”, but I do hope I’m open enough to accept it and not cast it aside because it doesn’t align with my prior ideas – or the traditions of my fathers — or even the popular ideas of men (which I am probably more inclined to believe). What would God want me to do?
My old missionary companion and a medical doctor I brought to the church believe Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. They think he started out sincere and did lots of good stuff but then got full of himself. They think when he tried to cover up his secret polygmany and take Law’s wife and Law tried to expose him in the Expositor, that the Lord took him down. Any thoughts on that? Bridget
bridget_night wrote:My old missionary companion and a medical doctor I brought to the church believe Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. They think he started out sincere and did lots of good stuff but then got full of himself. They think when he tried to cover up his secret polygmany and take Law’s wife and Law tried to expose him in the Expositor, that the Lord took him down.
Any thoughts on that? Bridget
I think the whole polyandry thing is a real problem for many reasons. All the reasons added up to one practical key: It had to be done ‘secretly’.It HAD to be done secretly since it was so contrary to our societal norms that to hear about it was to be offended, to be disgusted, to be scandalized. Not to mention being asked to participate, or for the brethren, being asked to *not* participate. Or were they? (see below)
And then there’s the ‘why’ it had to be done, which question Joseph answered, but only secretly, so very little of his explanations are available today. As I posted previously (somewhere on this site), I personally think it was his effort to continue the process of bringing the order of heaven to earth among men. I think he was morally fine to attempt it, as God defines what is morality (or, He should) is; but socially speaking it was impossible. Joseph had commented on how difficult it was to teach new things to the Saints, he knew it. He still proceeded, I am convinced (subjectively) he did so because he could see how it ‘worked’ in heaven.
His whole prophetic mission was to create the Kingdom of God on earth, so it can be seen as a continuation of his work since he was a youth. Evidence of this would be that this ‘sealing’ of Joseph to other men’s wives was matched by a ‘sealing’ of Joseph to *men* as well. This was called the ‘doctrine of adoption’.
The goal, it seems to me, was to have as large a network of men AND women sealed to Joseph as was humanly possible. This polyandry thing was only 1/2 of what Joseph was doing, the other 1/2 involved men being sealed to him. That’s one reason I don’t think sex was a motivating factor here, despite the affadavits given by his wives in the mid 1800’s. I think those were polemical against the Reorganites. Rather, I do think he was attempting to duplicate the network of relationships that he saw in his many heavenly visions.
He makes some remarks in his letters and journal entries that serve, for me anyway, as evidence for this view. I think if he were wise as a serpent he would not have done the polyandry thing and limited himself to patriarchal sealings only. Wish he had, but then, I haven’t gazed into heaven as he had.
HiJolly
I sometimes wonder if Joseph didn’t see something really different than we picture today with the “families are forever” style of sealing. Like HiJolly mentioned, sealings of many kinds were done. The notion of an eternal family with children really breaks down as your children grow up, move out and are on their own. It’s possible there could be a much more “open” order to relationships in heaven. I also think we focus way too much on the sex act here in this tangible kingdom. The old saying is “As above, so below.” I think we make a mistake when we try to force our “below” ways up into the heavens, as that being the way it is there. I think I am rambling now
Amen, valoel. I believe in being sealed to my wife as one eternal entity, but I personally think “sex” as we know it here is strictly a mortal experience. That conclusion alone opens up so many possibilities for the hereafter that I have little problem with the CONCEPT of polygamy/polyandry/polygeny/etc. – and even gay unions, frankly. I see eternal sealings as much more communal than individual, and I personally believe that vision is what drove Joseph to engage in so many differing versions of marriage. Even though they have been abandoned at the practical level now, I think their temporary practice opened the window for this type of conversation – and I’m glad for that. It might be hard to wrap our minds around, but at least we are able to try. I don’t want to sound like I don’t love my wife and children. I do. Everything I do in life these days is for them. They are a part of me, and I am a part of them. When my mind expands to think of the “eternities,” though, a thought comes in. I think: I first must be whole and complete, if I am to become one with God. That is what Jesus talked about — that he was one with God, and that we should be one with Him. Can I be “celestial” and really need others? Can I be that ultimate expression of my creation if I depend emotionally or spiritually on another? I’m not saying we should abandon connection, far from it. I see a glimpse of being connected to everyone, wanting that connection, and of course loving those I shared my mortal existence with. At some point though, I want my children to be my peers and equals, my friends and companions, not my little children. I want my wife to be a part of me, and for me to be a part of her. Is there so much seperation and emotional “ownership” of another when we are all one with God? That partly seems counter-intuitive.
We probably are too hard on prophets, but I think that’s perfectly reasonable in light of what they themselves ask of us. We’re constantly told to get in line and keep quiet, by every leader from the local bishop on up to Monson. They tell us that they have a message from God that we’re to follow. They promise us blessings for obedience and promise curses for malingering. Now, we can be as enlightened as we like and take the good with the bad and all that, but the fact is they bring this upon themselves by making grandiose promises. You don’t have to be perfect to be God’s messenger, but if you’re God’s messenger, you should probably expect others to elevate their standards when you blurt it out all the time.
Gabe, I think that’s a true and respectful point you make.
Thanks, Tom. I think that’s more than just an issue with Joseph, too. We’ve got to decide whether to take the Church on our terms or on “theirs” (to use an embarrassingly simplistic term). We want to see prophets in a more secular context, while the traditional view insists on a more absolutist view. I think that’s fine, but I also think that’s where some of my anger comes from. Trying to take the good and leave the bad, as hard as it is, gets a lot harder when you’re constantly being told that there is no way to do that and that those who try are insidious disciples of Satan. Of course, it isn’t the Church’s responsibility to help us reach a nontraditional understanding that would undermine both significant areas of doctrine and the growth model, but it’s unfortunate for us as individuals. I should be kinder and understand that they’re not really responding to my concerns or needs when they say things like that. I think I will post something at some point about the necessity of establishing a general ideal while allowing for individual adaptation – and the necessary tension inherent in that requirement. It’s a fascinating subject, and it’s critical to how I am able to view the collective Church and my personal place within it. Ray, Your post brings out a nagging concern I have had lately. Namely, that in reconciling to LDS Mormonism I am entering a realm of grave spiritual danger, where I essentially join a club of good old boys who are frankly insensitive to how the poor people are living today.
Gabe brings up a sincere and valid point of moral responsibility. Just like we can’t indiscriminately bend the ear of every Saint at church, we also can’t pretend before everybody that all is well in Zion. We can’t set up the weak for a fall. We can’t get elitist. We can’t deprive our loved ones of the Good Word in the name of loyalty. We can’t become double-speakers.
There is a distinct difference between the ambiguities of mysticism and the prevarications of apologetics.
Gabe P wrote:Trying to take the good and leave the bad, as hard as it is, gets a lot harder when you’re constantly being told that there is no way to do that and that those who try are insidious disciples of Satan.
I should be kinder and understand that they’re not really responding to my concerns or needs when they say things like that. BINGO!
It is sooooo hard to swallow our pride like that. It is hard to be accused of ignorance or evil. The truth of it though, when someone flings anger and fear at you like that, they are telling you a lot about themself, and not very much about you.
I consider at times that this is the perfect problem for us, to learn to love those people. We encounter the right resistances in our lives to polish the surface of the mirror of our soul.
I agree, Tom, but the core issue to me (hinted at by valoel) is to learn to “work out our own salvation” (meaning ONLYto figure it out on our own to the best of our ability and live by whatever we have figured out at any given time) while allowing “all men everywhere the same privilege”. It’s the recognition that general “safe” rules are fine for the collective whole that is just as important as the recognition that each individual needs to move beyond those general “safe” rules to reach his or her fullest potential. IME, many who go through a crisis of faith fail to establish their own foundation in a way that allows them to be accepting (fully and completely and wholly) of those who have not gone through that same crisis – for whom, perhaps, the general “safe” rules really are enough. It’s granting that others’ paths don’t need to be my path that was the truly liberating epiphany for me – or, I should say, that my path doesn’t need to be others’ paths – that their LEGITIMATE paths even might include paths that were only stepping stones for me – and, ultimately, that my path isn’t ANY “better” or “higher” or holier” than theirs are for them. Once I stopped trying to insist that others see things the same way I see them and started focusing simply on sharing how I see things without expectation and letting others get from it whatever they would . . .
Don’t get me wrong. I still “share the Gospel” with others, but it comes now from a foundation of sharing what brings me joy and seeing what sticks than expectations of conversion. I don’t “hunt” or fish with a line anymore (meaning I don’t try to identify a target and bring it down or reel it in); rather, now I fish with a net – or “chum” – or cast my bread upon the waters (meaning I toss my beliefs on the water and see which fish find it delicious to the taste). I don’t try to “hook” anyone anymore; I simply set the table, spread the food and see who is drawn to partake. I don’t condemn those who choose to refrain; I just keep repeating the process over and over and over again. I speak what I perceive to be “my truth”, but I do so in full respect of the limitations of those with whom I am speaking. (as I tried to encapsulate in my post about my mom and being understood)
I hope that makes sense.
Ray, I really like your last paragraph.
What I think is still missing from what you have been saying is the sense of your personal prophetic burden. Prophets are crazy. Prophets are uncomfortably honest. Prophets say the things we didn’t want to hear. Prophets call a spade a spade. And yes, I know, Latter-day Saints aren’t comfortable with the idea of prophets. But that doesn’t relieve the burden.
Does that make any sense? With that sense missing, your message comes across as making excuses for the spiritual weakness and compromises of the LDS Church. It comes across as saying all is well in Zion.
The subject of this thread is Joseph Smith. In trying to make sense of him, should we summarize without saying clearly he perhaps failed to accomplish the grand Restoration he envisioned? Should we summarize without saying clearly he perhaps left the plain and precious truths buried beneath abominations? Should we let it be assumed he delivered the Gospel to us once and for all with nothing left for us but to study his word?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.