Trying to make sense of Joseph Smith

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

How do you interpret faith in your life? Are you more scientifically inclined, so faith doesn’t have a place in your life, or does it have a place?

I’m not curt but I’m curious what you mean? What would JS have thought of your question? Not what he would have said, but would have thought. He had an uncanny knack of having all of the answers (kinderhook). Did he transcend faith due to his knowledge?

[Anonymous]

Regarding the question whether Joseph transcended faith due to his knowledge, I would have to answer….yeah.

What I mean is after you have seen resurected beings, it takes a little less faith. At least I think it would for me.

If I had visions, heavenly visitations, had an angel show me the location of ancient records, and had resurected beings lay their hands on me I might feel that I had a few more answers than most people. That’s probably only human. IMHO.

And yes, I might get a little cockey and make some quick assumptions that I might should have considered longer.

He was not an educated man and had no “how to usher in the last dispensation” instructions. I think he did a great job.

I caught myself staring at the title of this thread “Trying to make sense of Joseph Smith”. I respectfully submit that we cannot make sense of him anymore than any other pre-civil war person. We simply don’t live in that world.

I wrestled with it for years and finally came to the conclusion that I was trying to make Joseph Smith fit my world view instead of trying to understand his.

Whether we are liberal Mormon, conservative Mormon, or fundamentalist (like me) we are blessed and fortunate to have such a wonderful man at the head of this dispensation of the gospel.

Letting misunderstandings over early Church doctrines and practices challenge one’s faith is common but unnecessary. There are lots of great folks in the world and here on the internet who have been down the road and come out more convinced than ever of the truthfullness of the gospel. I would recommend to anyone doubting to not take the path of least resistance but search it out. You’ll be forever glad you did.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

He was not an educated man and had no “how to usher in the last dispensation” instructions

Great quote!

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Plural marriage (in all its various permutations) as practiced in the early decades of the Church while Joseph was living was incredibly complex – and fluid and “experimental” in many ways. It appears to me that they were trying to figure out exactly what “the Principle” meant in practical terms. Personally, I lean toward the communal sealing version being the ideal, where everyone was “married” to everyone else in a allegorical sense – and actual sexual intimacy quite quickly wasn’t a major, central part of most situations. (I see it as an approximation of the “council of the gods” concept, through which I believe spirit children are created somehow.)

HiJolly wrote:

I’d like to comment. I do think that Joseph lied at times. But I think to characterize him as “lying about it since marrying Fannie Alger” is too much of a blanket statement, for my taste. I think his status with Emma in terms of coming clean vs. hiding (lying) things was very fluid, perhaps in a correlation of sorts with how Emma was taking things. There is a lot of evidence that Emma knew about polygamy throughout this period.

DISCLAIMER: said with a bit of emotion

This is where I go crazy a bit. I don’t mean to pick on Ray and HiJolly, but I just don’t get the rationalization here. I am hesitant to say that things are right or wrong, as I have learned there is almost always an exception. But I personally can’t endorse anyone who lied about such a thing like he did.

Here’s my question to Ray and HiJolly. If I am to insert “Jim Jones” or “David Keresh” how does your statement change? They did very similar things (with regard to women), and lied about it. We not only don’t follow them, but generally we condemn what they did. (BTW, I’m not comparing Joseph to these men, but their methods were similar)

If one steps back a bit (out of the Mormon box and worldview) and compare Joseph to various other cult leaders, and philosopher kings, the comparisons are very easy to see. We can try forever to understand, justify, and rationalize each individual historical conundrum, and that is important to understand the details. But at the end of the day, on whether or not to make him and his teachings my spiritual guide, I just can’t, just like I wouldn’t endorse Sun Myung Moon, or various other leaders of this ilk.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Even if it seems the interpretation of the revelation is wrong (i.e. “I should never have sent those guys to Canada”), the result could be a learning experience you get by failing.

Well, we might just have to label me a faithless pagan on this. I just don’t buy this. I have bought into this argument my entire life. For me, the simpler explanation is that people make decisions and people make mistakes and people lie (not saying Joseph was). The idea that God tells us things that don’t work out so we can learn seems like a cruel trick. Either that or God just isn’t really doing the telling (which is my opinion). Honestly, is God that bent on our obedience to Him that He tells us things without giving an explanation just so we can try to “figure out” what He’s trying to tell us? Why the guessing game? I mean He comes down to Moses and writes a set of rules on some tablets that are clear and precise, the wisdom of which is obvious. But then He asks people to travel to Canada, live polygamy, live united order, etc. the wisdom of which is not obvious, but gives no insight into what we are to gain? Who is this God?

I think it is important to learn from experiences, and that is the great thing about life experience. And I think there is a time and place for just being obedient for the sake of it. But it seems to me like God does this an awful lot (read: all the time).

[Anonymous]

jmb275, Joseph was a charismatic leader – absolutely. However, if we “step back a little” and compare ANY charismatic leader to ANY other charismatic leader, your statement applies exactly as written. Substitute Barrack Obama – same result. Substitute Ronald Reagan – same result. Substitute Winston Churchill – same result. Substitute Martin Luther King, Jr – or Gandhi – or Jesus of Nazareth – same result. (Frankly, when I speak in public, substitute Ray – same result.)

I don’t mean to trivialize your comment, since I think it is very valid – but it only shows and stresses the horrible examples.

The difference I see is simple:

Every one of the people I mentioned was a combination of great/noble/enlightening/progressive and flawed/dogmatic/hypnotic/frightening. They were real and complex – and they obviously and truly cared about protecting their “followers” and helping them grow and gain power while interacting within the greater society. They created better people than those who joined them were when they joined them. Article of Faith #11 and the “govern themselves” statement are perhaps the best example of this focus – a direct respect for others combined with a dedication to and passion for one’s own ideals. That’s a tricky balance, but they tried.

Jim Jones and David Koresh, otoh, were all about insularity, objective and extremist control, literal brain-washing and mind control, death rather than disloyalty or denial, etc.

There are elements of the cultish in all movements led by charismatics, but there are STARK differences in far too many manifestations to equate all charismatics (including Joseph) with Jones and Koresh and their ilk.

Also, I really think you reacted to what you thought we were implying – not what we actually wrote. I, for one, didn’t mean what I think you assumed I implied – certainly not in the section you quoted.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

For me, the simpler explanation is that people make decisions and people make mistakes and people lie

I agree – and I’ve been saying that all along.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

The idea that God tells us things that don’t work out so we can learn seems like a cruel trick. Either that or God just isn’t really doing the telling (which is my opinion).

That concept goes to the very core of who/what God is? Or who/what you think He is? At some level, everyone is led by God. If you believe in a conscience that generally makes a human understand basic right from wrong. Maybe that’s all that God is. As we develop our understanding of right and wrong, then our “God” grows and develops inside us. And we can then experience a greater amount of joy or a higher plane of happiness. Maybe……

[Anonymous]

I’m wondering what others think about some of our LDS principles that were broken to live polygamy. Why does God give us opposition in his laws? What does it mean? Let alone the lying part which we have already established is against God’s law.

D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. (given in August 1831)

AF12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

1835 August 17, Article on Marriage. “According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting or feast prepared for that purpose, and that the solemnization should be performed by a Presiding High Priest, High Priest, Bishop, Elder or Priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this Church from marrying out of the Church, … The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.18, p.247.)

These were all canonized statements in the days of JS. I find the revelation D&C 58 especially confusing if polygamy was commanded by God.

Polygamy (bigomy) was against the law in Illinois as early as 1833.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Jim Jones and David Koresh, otoh, were all about insularity, objective and extremist control, literal brain-washing and mind control, death rather than disloyalty or denial, etc.

With regard to the rest of your comment, I digress, you are right. To me, however, this is what the church became about, and Joseph led the way. A secret ritual with secret handshakes, words, vows, covenants pledging allegiance to the church and its authority, with a designated costume, alongside an entire array of cult-like mind control mechanisms found in our church lead me to believe that Joseph was closer to a regular cult leader than to someone like Reagan, Obama, or you.

As part of my deconstruction I did a fair amount of research on cult control mechanisms. I was shocked to see how many are in place in the church today. And in Joseph’s day, even more of them were in place (although there were even more in BY’s day).

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

Why does God give us opposition in his laws? What does it mean? Let alone the lying part which we have already established is against God’s law.

Someone mentioned in another thread the incongruities with the Laban story and some of the commands in the OT to kill children. An argument could be made that it isn’t God giving these laws…

“There must needs be opposition in all things”? Does there need to be opposition to the opposition? I think so.

[Anonymous]

I think maybe all things are not supposed to fit into a nice neat little package of a bunch of commandments and follow them and you’re saved. Christ taught we need to let go of laws.

Love God and love your neighbor.

There seems to be a heirarchy of laws. Lying is not as “great” a commandment as loving your neighbor.

Abraham showed us murder was not as great a commandment as loving God.

Maybe other laws aren’t in direct opposition to polygamy, just lower on the priority list?

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

“There must needs be opposition in all things”? Does there need to be opposition to the opposition? I think so.

I don’t think so. In fact, I would say that this is the opposite of what there needs to be. In Eastern thought, specifically in Hinduism there is the concept that good and evil are to be overcome. We are to rise above the duality we see and become one with these things.

From the wikipedia article on Joseph Campbell

Quote:

All religions, including Christianity and Buddhism, can bring one to an elevated awareness above and beyond a dualistic conception of reality, or idea of “pairs of opposites,” such as being and non-being, or right and wrong. Indeed, he quotes in the preface of The Hero with a Thousand Faces: “Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names.”—which is a translation of the Rig Vedic saying, “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi.”

Personally, I think the duality concept of good and evil is a form of checklist we use to ensure that we are on the “right” side. Of course the “right” side is determined by the leaders of the church. Each general conference we hear stuff about the world is getting more wicked, more immoral, etc. etc. I don’t know what world they’re looking at, but the one I’m looking at doesn’t exude those things. On the contrary, I see the vast majority of people are upstanding individuals doing the best they know how to do.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

I’d like to comment. I do think that Joseph lied at times. But I think to characterize him as “lying about it since marrying Fannie Alger” is too much of a blanket statement, for my taste. I think his status with Emma in terms of coming clean vs. hiding (lying) things was very fluid, perhaps in a correlation of sorts with how Emma was taking things. There is a lot of evidence that Emma knew about polygamy throughout this period.

DISCLAIMER: said with a bit of emotion

This is where I go crazy a bit. I don’t mean to pick on Ray and HiJolly, but I just don’t get the rationalization here. I am hesitant to say that things are right or wrong, as I have learned there is almost always an exception. But I personally can’t endorse anyone who lied about such a thing like he did.

Here’s my question to Ray and HiJolly. If I am to insert “Jim Jones” or “David Keresh” how does your statement change? They did very similar things (with regard to women), and lied about it. We not only don’t follow them, but generally we condemn what they did. (BTW, I’m not comparing Joseph to these men, but their methods were similar)

Changes a lot.

Look, that fact is that whether we’re talking about the Savior’s way (good) or Satan’s way (bad) EITHER WAY, we have to give up our will. Having been *one* with God on a few occasions, I’m OK with it. But I didn’t just get there in a moment. The path is given, the example clear, IMO.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/5/6#6” class=”bbcode_url”>http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/5/6#6

I have seen this happen in my own life. I give up my will to God and obey Him. Then He teaches me by the spirit why I needed to obey, and gives me candy. It’s awesome. But FIRST I must believe and obey. Mind control? Ok. No issues here.

Jesus taught that if we want to know which way is right, we should try it out. The answer is in the living. The fruits show the way. We look at Koresh and Jones and the fruits FAIL. We look at Joseph and some few things might fail, but most LIVE. Namely and primarily, *the Church*, which is a fantastic source of good in the world today. And it simply wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Joseph. WIN!

In my opinion, this is not philosophical or theological, but the practical reality. We can fret and worry about methodologies and such, but what *works*? We all get to choose, no mind control there. You, I would think, are a great case in point. Sure, some people just go with whatever. We’ll always have people like that. We’re not like that, though. So who are you worried about?

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

In my opinion, this is not philosophical or theological, but the practical reality. We can fret and worry about methodologies and such, but what *works*?

Yes, following the fruit is just fine, but each religious leader has their own ideas of what the fruit is. It seems you have equated the fruit in the LDS church with the fruit from Jesus. I am perfectly happy to, and want to follow Christ’s teachings. They are the ultimate fruit that works. But as “just me” has pointed out the contradictions of doctrines and practices in the LDS church are stunning. This is the method that I’m questioning.

HiJolly wrote:

We all get to choose, no mind control there. You, I would think, are a great case in point. Sure, some people just go with whatever. We’ll always have people like that. We’re not like that, though. So who are you worried about?

This is the common Mormon view of freedom. That since we have our ultimate agency there is no mind control, or coercion. To me, this ignores loads and loads of psychological, cultural, social, and circumstantial evidence to the contrary. We could say the same thing about Jim Jones’ followers, that there was no mind control, and they had their agency. Coercion is far more subtle than holding a gun to someone’s head. And, no, I am a terrible example. I was one of them. I was TBM my entire life, believing in the literalness of all kinds of things, from garments literally protecting me to priesthood blessings curing the sick. This isn’t evidence of anything. We might as well say that since some people have left fundamentalist Mormon compounds that this is evidence there is no cult-like mind control. The argument just doesn’t hold up. The big difference that I see is that our “ends” in the LDS church are better than those of Jim Jones group. But there are many similarities in the methods used. Have you looked into the methods of mind control used by cults?

As for submitting our wills, it has been my personal experience that this is more an exercise in psychology (a very useful one I admit), rather than a prescribed act the object of which is God, or worse, a church. What I mean is that, it is the method that is important, not the end. Since I have stopped submitting my will to the God as prescribed by the leaders of the church, and now submit my will to say, my family’s well being, or the God I believe in, the results have been the same for me. Maybe we are agreeing on this point.

[Author]

Posts