Understanding Joseph Smith

[Anonymous]

I thought this was a very well done OP on By Common Consent: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/11/13/notes-toward-a-new-vision-of-the-prophet/ The topic is reframing JS in a way that is accurate and encompasses the contradictory accounts. In essence, there are 4 main story arcs:

– social power

– prophecy

– salvation

– apotheosis

I don’t want to spoil it since I think the article is worth reading. Love to hear your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

I read it yesterday and was pondering on it this morning. I won’t post any thoughts just yet. I’ll give others a chance to read it. I’ll check back later today and comment.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

In essence, there are 4 main story arcs:

– social power

I remember two things from RSR on this:

1) that checks and balances on power are not the issue in the Kingdom of God, only worthiness is!

2) that after the bad experience with the former Nauvoo mayor and (to a lesser extent) the Danites, Joseph was going to keep as much of the decision power close to the vest as possible.

Quote:

prophecy

Also that JS had seemed to graduate from mouthpiece to experienced traveler. As time went on the gift of prophecy seemed to rely less and less on mediums (or props [depending on your viewpoint]).

Quote:

salvation

I don’t remember Bro. Bushman touching on this point very much (except as part of an explanation for polygamy) and it is one that makes me personally uncomfortable.

Quote:

But something else shifted in Nauvoo as regards salvation. Closely connected with the advent of plural/celestial marriage (and to a lesser but still significant degree to the practice of adoptive sealing), Joseph Smith increasingly situated himself as a conduit of exalting divine power. Not in a messianic sense, mind you, but Joseph formally and repeatedly positioned himself to certain of his followers as a being they must be connected to. For those asked to join his ever-expanding and -extending family, exaltation came to depend on their potential connection to him, a relationship with the Prophet that itself was a source of the exalting power of Christ. People could access Christ and celestial glory under the cover of Joseph’s seal, and could trust in the saving and exalting power conveyed through their relationship with him. Joseph himself became a source of exaltation to those bound to him by the sealing power of priesthood.

Perhaps this is part of the reason that polygamy is so difficult for us to understand – because it is based (in part) on concepts that are so foreign to Modern Mormonism. The closest modern comparison that I could imagine would be if it was said that you had to be sealed to the church for exaltation… the church would increase in glory as additional souls were added unto it and the souls would be grandfathered in to the covenant based on their relationship with the church. But mental alarms start to go off when you substitute a man [but especially a living man] for the church in my hypothetical example. Maybe if it was said that everyone that was sealed in this dispensation must be sealed through JS as the dispensational head (likewise through Abraham before reaching all the way back to Adam), this would make more sense to me – but if this were so why isn’t anyone (historians, or church officials, or detractors) using this reasoning?

Quote:

Apotheosis

Likewise I don’t remember Bro. Bushman touching too much on this concept. I suppose a more problematic issue of this evolutional thought is that the revelations and translations that have come to us through JS seem to display this same evolution – at least implying the imprecise nature of the revelatory/translation process and leaving open ended the question of how much of a prophet’s humanity and limitations end up in the divine print.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I think that (again, in full acknowledgment of their over-simplistic and reductionist nature) the narrative arcs traced out here—of Joseph’s increasing comfortability wielding sometimes unprecedented degrees of social power; of his shift from conduit of eternal truth to source of eternal truth; of a path to salvation and exaltation on which he (and a relationship with him) occupied an increasingly central and indispensable place; and of a traditionally Christian theology gradually displaced by a monistic cosmos characterized by the consubstantiality of God and humanity—lead to one possible synthesizing narrative of Joseph Smith’s life.

I’ll read this piece again tonight to see if it becomes more clear but thus far it just seems deep as in get out the hip waders. Thank you, HG, for the summary. It was much more understandable. His punchline about JS being a God was a little hard to swallow but maybe that’s just me.

[Anonymous]

Actually, that summary was by Roy. But I’ll weigh in and share a few of my observations from the OP.

I’ve always had some contradictory thoughts about JS, and I’m not sure this changes them. He does seem to be a megalomaniac and opportunist to me, someone who became increasingly blind to the consequences of his actions, although I agree that those traits developed over time; I like how the OP points out the contradictory aspects of JS as part of a story arc, which is what I’ve always seen, too – he starts out humble, then gains power & success within the narrow vein of the church he founds, and he essentially redefines what success entails.

I have often wondered if he died at age 44 because he was off the rails (God whacked him before it could get worse) or if he had “graduated” from mortality, having accomplished all he needed to, or if it was just the consequences of his own human failings. Clearly #3 was the case (IMO), but the question is whether that was also related to #1 or #2, both of which require belief in divine intervention regarding the role of prophet, and I’m not 100% sold on that idea. I have always leaned toward explanation #1 – that God whacked him because he was out of control, gobbling up power, taking wives right and left. But the OP seems to be offering up #2 (perhaps in combination with #3).

On the 4 points of the OP, my reaction was that this may describe JS, but it also describes how Mormons in general feel and act and have throughout the last 150 years:

– Social Power. Since we associate social power with worthiness, we revere leaders, and to an extent, leaders come to revere themselves; leadership goes to people’s heads. The other thought I had around this was that since the beginning of the church, people have wanted to know that their sacrifices were enough. There was a huge focus on making your calling & election sure, including second anointings by invitation. I think this is an extension of the desire for social power. People want to cross the finish line in this life. They don’t want to wait for the judgment day. The commitments we are making are tough. We want validation.

– Prophecy. This one was interesting. The story arc of graduating from the use of props is not new, but adding to that the idea that JS himself became the “source” of revelation, not just its conduit, that one is a little further out there. Yet I agree. And how different could that be from today when opinions expressed by leaders in GC become binding. Side note: One testimony-shaker occurred for me many years ago when one of the Q12 talked about the reason we use “thee” and “thou.” I was listening smugly thinking “This is what’s great about the church; our leaders use revelation to know things that others haven’t fathomed. Most churches would say something stupid like ‘This is the language of the Bible, so obviously God talks this way.’ Little do they know.” Of course, everyone who has ever studied a Latin-based foreign language knows this is the familiar form used when the relationship is close and intimate, used with family members and close friends. Yet, this talk claimed it was because it was more formal and reverent for deity. It was so obviously wrong. I’m still left agog at that misstep.

– Salvation. This was another really interesting part of the OP. The shift from Protestant salvation (which is frankly all over the BOM) to a much cooler, more unique version that is both communal (sealings together, consecration) and yet ultimately individualistic (eternal progression, godhood – next item) is really outstanding about Mormonism. It doesn’t reflect well on the theological accuracy of the BOM, but it certainly does advance some concepts in fresh ways. Yet even here, we get back to that megalomania – it’s not just communal sealing, but sealing specifically to JS that saves – dynastic thinking. Which I really hate and don’t believe. This one I think is pure ego run amok, at least as relates to polygamy.

– Apotheosis. Again, this is another transition away from Protestant understandings of God toward a God that has a body (as you can see in the shifting accounts of the First Vision). I’m going to go with this one and say it shifted as the nature of God became better understood and revealed itself more to JS (because I prefer our Human Mormon God to the Protestant gooshy 3-in-1 version that is so unclear). This arc I can accept as part of a growing clarity on JS’s part.

I thought the OP was amazing and fresh. I didn’t fully agree, and I probably didn’t fully comprehend, but in my not comprehending, I still gained insight.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I’ve always had some contradictory thoughts about JS. … I have often wondered if he died at age 44 …

He was 39, wasn’t he, and died in ’44? JS is/was an enigma. I haven’t always, but certainly now do feel a lot of ambiguity towards him. “Praise to the Man” is one of those hymns I just can’t bring myself to do more than hum, and the apotheosis (or glorification of, to the level of the divine) of JS that I see in the church is one of my handful of stated reasons for having had to develop my own view of things. Somewhat ironically, now that I have begun to let go of most of the trappings of the church that I can’t make sense of, and have begun to pay more attention to the things that JS actually said, the more I like him, with all his failings. Often I wonder if he would be able to recognize the church that claims to be his legacy.

Regarding the re-hashing of history that the OP refers to, Bushman wrote what I think is a really excellent essay on the topic in Believing History. One of his points, I think, is that there are no objective histories, and since the mores of society change over time, rewriting histories from new perspectives is a natural and necessary thing.

[Anonymous]

I reread the OP and read again certain parts. For me the explanations of the different arcs and how JS changed as regards the different themes were interesting but did not make him more understandable, believable as a prophet, or human in the sense that I can ignore or dismiss his foilbles. As I read the passage below it occurred to me that he is being worshipped and given the “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me clause”, it made me more than a little uncomfortable.

Quote:

Joseph is not merely transmitting here. He is thinking, speculating, inferring, reasoning and revealing truth. But he now is the source. He sees truth and tells us what he sees. He’s not a medium or a go-between. He reveals, he is himself a source of eternal truth about God, humanity, and the universe.

I guess I never will be comfortable with JS and the person that he seemed to be. I’ll just leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

I always wondered if he instilled the doctrine of polygamy because he had an indiscretion on the side, was found out, and so to justify it, he made it doctrine.

Kind of like when you play a sport, and the ball hits you and it actually produces some unusual consequence. People will say “I MEANT to do that” — as if there was thought, justification and planning into something that was really the result of chance or even weakness of character.

But like everyone else, I have no justification or proof for that belief. It just makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The topic is reframing JS in a way that is accurate and encompasses the contradictory accounts…Love to hear your thoughts.

I don’t really know what to think about this essay. I get the idea that maybe Joseph Smith’s history is more complex than many people think and can be interpreted many different ways and it looks like his theology and approach to being a prophet evolved over time. However, my lack of confidence in the Church was never really about pretending to understand exactly what Joseph Smith was thinking or why he acted the way he did. To me, it doesn’t really make much of a difference whether he was a self-serving con-man, pious fraud, sincere mystic that really had unusual visions, or some combination of all of these labels and more because no matter what you want to call him I just don’t trust him enough to take his word for it regarding any of his purported revelations and “translations.”

Basically, I don’t see why anyone should be expected to put much stock in some of these Mormon traditions regarding the supposed reliability of prophets and exclusive authority given all the existing information and contradictions that appear to discredit these claims. That’s why I think the Church should tone it down with the glorification of prophets and harsh authoritarian demands for strict obedience and unquestioning loyalty. No matter how much success these same doctrines have achieved so far the Church has seriously gone way over the top with some of this and it will be increasingly difficult to sell now that it’s not as easy to ignore the facts anymore.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

But something else shifted in Nauvoo as regards salvation. Closely connected with the advent of plural/celestial marriage (and to a lesser but still significant degree to the practice of adoptive sealing), Joseph Smith increasingly situated himself as a conduit of exalting divine power. Not in a messianic sense, mind you, but Joseph formally and repeatedly positioned himself to certain of his followers as a being they must be connected to. For those asked to join his ever-expanding and -extending family, exaltation came to depend on their potential connection to him, a relationship with the Prophet that itself was a source of the exalting power of Christ. People could access Christ and celestial glory under the cover of Joseph’s seal, and could trust in the saving and exalting power conveyed through their relationship with him. Joseph himself became a source of exaltation to those bound to him by the sealing power of priesthood.

Perhaps this is part of the reason that polygamy is so difficult for us to understand – because it is based (in part) on concepts that are so foreign to Modern Mormonism. The closest modern comparison that I could imagine would be if it was said that you had to be sealed to the church for exaltation… the church would increase in glory as additional souls were added unto it and the souls would be grandfathered in to the covenant based on their relationship with the church. But mental alarms start to go off when you substitute a man [but especially a living man] for the church in my hypothetical example. Maybe if it was said that everyone that was sealed in this dispensation must be sealed through JS as the dispensational head (likewise through Abraham before reaching all the way back to Adam), this would make more sense to me – but if this were so why isn’t anyone (historians, or church officials, or detractors) using this reasoning?

hawkgrrrl wrote:

– Salvation. This was another really interesting part of the OP. The shift from Protestant salvation (which is frankly all over the BOM) to a much cooler, more unique version that is both communal (sealings together, consecration) and yet ultimately individualistic (eternal progression, godhood – next item) is really outstanding about Mormonism. It doesn’t reflect well on the theological accuracy of the BOM, but it certainly does advance some concepts in fresh ways. Yet even here, we get back to that megalomania – it’s not just communal sealing, but sealing specifically to JS that saves – dynastic thinking. Which I really hate and don’t believe. This one I think is pure ego run amok, at least as relates to polygamy.

So if this version of JS is to be seen as faithful then it is faithful in some glaring cult of personality ways. Perhaps if we still maintained that JS somehow broke free of his humanity and became some sort of demi-god and was even now orchestrating events for the good of the saints from the other side, if we believed that all our sealings must pass through the head of each dispensation and that that head becomes the father of the dispensation and all persons sealed therein and that all persons in this timeline must be saved under the umbrella of JS, if we believed that all persons in this dispensation must come to Jesus through JS (just as we believe that the only way to Heavenly Father is through Jesus) – then this might be seen as faithful by us.

But then in both of my examples it does not cause the same revulsion to place Jesus Christ at that apex. Why is that? Is it because He was chosen in the pre-mortal realm? Is it because he died for us? All these things could just as easily be said about JS. He was chosen before he was born and was foretold in scripture. He was one of the noble and great ones. He died to seal his testimony with his blood and to forever hold open the doors of salvation for his brethren. Why is it OK to worship Jesus but not JS or Mohammad? I guess for me it is all about my upbringing and the culture surrounding me, If I had grown up being told how JS was destined to skyrocket to the CK, chart the uncharted course, and take as many of his brothers and sisters with him as would hearken – then this would make perfect sense and be “faithful.” Is there any branch of Mormonism that currently places this much emphasis on JS?

I am reminded of two historical fiction novels I possess about Emma Smith: One from the perspective of the RLDS circa 1950 where Emma is the heroin rebuffing BY’s power grabs, maintaining her dead husband’s good name amidst the false accusations of polygamy, and cultivating the gospel (metaphorically) as a spark in the wilderness – keeping the embers burning until her son was ready to step into his rightful role as was foretold. The other was a more recent telling from the mainline LDS perspective. This one took creative license in other directions that supported (both subtlely and overtly) the current LDS perspective

In order for an angle to be faithful, it must be faithful to an audience. Is it still faithful if it is only faithful to an audience (worldview) long since gone? If a depiction of what JS actually believed about himself (and what his immediate followers believed about him) could be made, and if that depiction was very foreign and even revolting to us as modern Mormons – what would that tell us? Perhaps nothing more than that the church has changed in fundamental ways both during and after the time of JS (“It aint your grandmother’s church anymore!”). We already do this for the Old Testament church and the church at the meridian of time (arguably very different churches and belief systems but for the sake of argument, let’s say that they are different manifestations of the same church). Just how much loyalty do we owe to our founding history and heritage? Are we free to build upon these founding moments to the degree that when looking at them (the founding experiences and people) through the prism of what we have made them to be, the original is altogether lost and distorted? Is it enough that we have found ways to re-cast these moments and reinterpret them in ways that make them relevant and meaningful for the modern world, when they might have otherwise drifted into obscurity?

What do you think?

P.S. Doug posted this while I was composing my post and it seems almost to be in answer to my last question – I did not want it to seem as though I had ignored his contribution.

doug wrote:

Regarding the re-hashing of history that the OP refers to, Bushman wrote what I think is a really excellent essay on the topic in Believing History. One of his points, I think, is that there are no objective histories, and since the mores of society change over time, rewriting histories from new perspectives is a natural and necessary thing.

[Anonymous]

Weighing In on Joseph Smith-These are a few random thoughts.

First of all adapting perspective, like the BCC author did, happen often in our lives when we do it with big history it can be very challenging. This same author probably held a different opinion at one time, and I am willing to bet may even abandon this opinion in time.

I tend to support Bushmans point about judging history. It’s a tricky subject with abundant points of view and the present day person really has only a limited scope of knowledge – even full time historians. For me when I run across the confusing or disappointing stuff I try to take a step back and play history comparison analogies. One of these happened yesterday for me. (I hope this won’t run too long).

My son takes an online high school. I sit with him during the teacher lectures so we can get a good overview for the week. In his history class they were discussing the Japanese Interment in WW2. The presentation was slanted to point out how awful this was. (Don’t misunderstand I don’t believe in rounding up people and I can see great hurt that went into it). As I listened I was really struggling. My mom was just 10 days shy of her first birthday when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Her caucasin family lived in Southern California. My grandmother often told me about the day and the events after it. Because she was alive and living close to it, she remembered the fear, the confusion, the uncertainty Pearl Harbor had created. In the days which followed with all the unknown in front of them American leadership made a decision. Maybe it was reactionary, from our point of view now it was, in that moment they felt they needed to act for further protection. Eleven years ago we all lived through the experience of 9/11. Time has already shifted our initial opinions. As a nation we announced our solidarity, grief, and resolve through stickers that said, “These colors don’t fade.” School kids nationwide pulled out their red, white and blue clothes to wear to school. Congress was quick to support a presidential plan to respond to our attackers. As I say now just a decade beyond it things don’t seem as clear. And all of us lived through it. What will historians and others judge this time as in 50, 60, 175 years.

This brings me back to Joseph. I can only understand snippets of frontier life. I have to add a whole bunch of guesses as to what it felt like, or who did what to whom. Or what Josephs nature really was. Right now in my life I have a lot of images to choose from. None of them complete. So for me I have decided to wait on my judgement of Joseph. I have chosen to let the scripture that says, “let the Lord judge between me and thee and reward thee (in this case Joseph) according to thy deeds.”

So formatting for me just gives me another option on the table.

[Anonymous]

I’m going to double post here since these thoughts were separate and my other post was long. I wanted to address the Praise To The Man issue.

First I sense where and how the song can stick in your throat. You know when everyone else is singing it with all their gusto that they picture a flawless man in a soft blue coat gazing into the horizon. And once the picture becomes less polished it makes it hard to shout Hallelujah.

If you don’t mind though, I’ve come to think of it another way.

Whether good or bad, flawless or fallible, Joseph Smith died an untimely death by an assassin. Often we mortals experience an intense response to that. Just look at Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy. At the time of both of their deaths they were not beloved. It was rumored that Kennedy wouldn’t win re-election. America had lost faith in the man. But his death and the morbid events that caused it pushed him to a greatness he may have never achieved. The images burned painfully in our minds brought something unexpected to the forefront. Though no hymns were written for him, his works and images became land marks for everyone. His PT109 story was the stuff heroes are made of . His Profiles in Courage continue to be the go to book for leadership. All this from a bullet. Lincoln’s untimely death was very similar. The south still didn’t love him, no matter how we would like to imagine it. And the north had questions. But that bullet shifted many peoples feelings toward him.

In the American West this band of people experienced something similar. The hymn itself was written by a man who once hated Joseph Smith. Of anyone who could decide to mourn or vilify Smith, Phelps was close to number one. In his grief he wrote a song. The song is now an anthem. Why it didn’t get lost in history I don’t know. Other songs written for the saints did. For me I take a deep breath and try to remember what those left behind might have felt. They lived it. They lived with Joseph. How much they knew, we may never know, but like other leaders his death was a beacon for them. The song was their anthem of hope.

I have not decided what Joseph would think of it. Some of his final addresses would make it seem like he would be thrilled to have his own hymn. But other parts of him lead me to believe differently. For all the ego that we suppose he had I have found it intriguing that he rarely preached from the book “he wrote”. Many of his addresses were platforms from the bible. Especially Paul. I don’t read of meetings that began with “As KIng Benjamin taught us” or “Like Nephi of old”. From my vantage point I would expect an egotistical soul to pulpit pound his magnum opus. Yes he never rejected it, he testified of it’s origin, and his conviction of it, but it wasn’t his platform. Something else was. So for me Praise to the Man is a hymn I hum or sing in remembrance of bands of people who crossed oceans, deserts, and mountains in the hope of something deep that burned in their hearts.

[Anonymous]

Amen, mom3. That is exactly how I feel about that hymn.

I don’t love every line in it, but I still love it for the deep emotions it expresses about a beloved friend.

[Author]

Posts