- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Under the JS polygamy thread Ray mentioned that:
Quote:I would say most members are fine with serious missteps.
I think the issue for most members is serious sins.
I am fine with prophets having serious sins, but that is a line many people just can’t cross.
So, I know what my line is and I’m wondering what others would say. For me deceit and infidelity would render invalid any claim to priesthood authority but it’s actually only a personal opinion as it would take a disciplinary council to make anything official. I don’t believe in this day and age anyone would excuse any member of the 1st Presidency of the 12 of any serious sin and I don’t know why it should be any different for JS.My justification would require a text wall that no one wants to read but I’m similar to Ray. I’m fine with prophets having serious sin. The short version is that it depends on how you define a prophet and how you define a prophet’s role. I realize that explanation can be viewed as nuancing away from the majority view definition of a prophet within Mormonism but you asked how I view things.
I agree that we wouldn’t tolerate Pres. Monson or any of the current Q15 (or 70 or SPs or bishops) acting like many of the early church leaders including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I suppose part of that might be cultural – we wouldn’t tolerate what some of the founding fathers of the USA did either. I think another huge part of our view from the modern standpoint is that Joseph has been put on such a pedestal and his history was scrubbed squeaky clean for so long. I believe there is a belief among at least some members that Joseph was infallible. There are many others that just put the stuff on the proverbial shelf. I do believe that Joseph had a profound spiritual experience as a young man. I’m not sure about the accuracy any of the first vision descriptions, but I believe something happened (not necessarily physically happened) Joseph believed it as well because otherwise he could have just walked away and gotten lost on the frontier and never been heard from again. If a teenager had a story about the first vision and the other stuff in the modern world the world at large would probably not know and the kid would be thought a crackpot at the very least. I don’t actually believe much else about Joseph’s revelations or visions or whatever, and honestly think he made much of it up (or perhaps he believed he was getting revelation but really wasn’t).
To sort of answer the question, I don’t know if I have a line. I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and little else about the church. I suppose in some sense I am a cultural Mormon because the church is where I feel most comfortable. I am also more orthoprax than orthodox as far as church participation goes. Joseph was the founder of the church (although I’m not sure he would recognize the modern version) and he is what he is – a man who had more faults than I do (which in some ways gives me hope). He is part of church history and we can’t change that. I sin and I still “receive revelation” and “feel the Spirit” so I suppose Joseph, Brigham, et al, could do the same.
I don’t know if I’m really answering, but my line is: Don’t tell me what to think or say. I can’t control who speaks the truth. If Galileo or Einstein did something awful, it doesn’t make their truth false. But don’t tell me what they did wasn’t wrong because they got something else right.
Ann wrote:If Galileo or Einstein did something awful, it doesn’t make their truth false. But don’t tell me what they did wasn’t wrong because they got something else right.
Bingo!! Nailed it! For me, what really bothers me is that we can’t just say that JS made mistakes. Before my FC, as a TBM, I grew tired of feeling like I had to justify JS’s actions. The more I found out about his misbehavior, the more I had to stretch to justify it. I know we don’t HAVE to justify anything he did, but in order to remain TBM, I felt like I had to find ways to justify what he did for myself in an effort to keep my testimony of JS intact. JS bothers me a lot less now that I’ve allowed myself to believe what I want to believe, and drop what I don’t believe. I go to Gospel Principles, because most of the lessons are about generic topics. JS didn’t do one specific thing that crossed my line. He crossed my line with his general character, and way he lived his life as a whole. I can overlook a few missteps over the line, if a person recognizes their mistake and corrects it. But, for me at least, JS crossed the line and never turned back. He was becoming more extreme as time went on.How do I reconcile this, and ‘stay LDS?’ By remembering that I’m staying to participate in the church as it is NOW. I don’t have a testimony in the church as it was in the time of JS and BY. I don’t belong to that church. I try to live Christ’s gospel, and I see opportunities to serve and help others by being a part of this church. I stay for me, not for JS.
Another thing to consider is why some are bothered and other’s not. Hans Mattson, the area authority seventy, that either left the church or retired from any active church life, along with a number of Swedish saints, after learning about JS’s polygamy/polyandry. Why are some OK with serous sins in leaders and for others it’s a deal breaker. I know the essays are supposed to inoculate but it seems to me that’s there’s more too it than that. Just wondering. This is a great topic! I must say that I agree more with GBSmith than with Ray or Nibbler, but this may just be where I’m at in my faith journey (stuck mostly in Fowler’s stage 4). Maybe Ray and Nibbler have transitioned to stage 5 or 6 and no longer have an issue with a prophet committing serious sin. I have a hard time giving brother Joseph or Brother Brigham a break (as Elder Anderson would say) because of the bad things that they taught and did. For me, they both crossed the line. This is also why I have a hard time accepting the Q15 as “prophets, seers, and revelators.” For me, the Nov. 2015 exclusion policy crossed the line and I don’t know that I can trust anything that comes from them now as revelation or inspiration.
nibbler wrote:My justification would require a text wall that no one wants to read but I’m similar to Ray. I’m fine with prophets having serious sin.
The short version is that it depends on how you define a prophet and how you define a prophet’s role. I realize that explanation can be viewed as nuancing away from the majority view definition of a prophet within Mormonism but you asked how I view things.
Nibbler or Ray, can you explain more about how you define a prophet and a prophet’s role that allows you to be ok with a prophet committing serious sin? I believe JS said that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such. How do you know when he is speaking as such?I also love what Ann said:
Quote:If Galileo or Einstein did something awful, it doesn’t make their truth false. But don’t tell me what they did wasn’t wrong because they got something else right.
I’m trying to see the truths that JS & BY brought to us. Or even what the current Q15 bring to us now. I guess I’m more focused on the 2nd part of what Ann said –don’t tell me what they did wasn’t wrong because they got something else right. Yes, I struggle with nuance! Matt 18
Quote:15 ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
That’s pretty black & white – I think there are both good and bad fruits that have come from JS, BY, and the current Q15. How can I just take the good fruit and cast the rest away?
GBSmith wrote:Why are some OK with serous sins in leaders and for others it’s a deal breaker.
That’s a good question.
I feel like we spend far too much time in church trying to prove its truthfulness. The restoration narrative, Joseph Smith, and a modern day prophet are the things we often focus on in order to convince people (or ourselves) to accept a deal. What happens to that deal when something comes along that challenges the restoration narrative, Joseph Smith, or the modern day prophet?
I’d smack my own hand for saying this but I don’t know a way to talk around it… some people have a strong testimony of Joseph Smith and the One True Church. It’s not surprising, that seems to be the endgame of a lot of the instruction we receive at church. I’d smack my own hand because it feels like I’m saying that some people placed their testimony in the wrong thing, or that there’s something “better” for people to have a testimony in, and that’s not what I’m saying.
It’s not the same for everyone but for me the process wasn’t:
These are Joseph Smith’s serious sins.
:thumbup: It was more like:
These are Joseph Smith’s serious sins.
🙄 :problem: :think: 😯 😮 
:thumbdown: 👿 :eh: :think: 
🙂 :thumbup: It was a process that lasted a while.
I like Ann’s answer, it touches on the text wall in my mind but in a more succinct way. What if a prophet is called to reveal one thing to the world but it goes to their head (and maybe other people’s heads as well) and they think that because they did this one thing that it sets them up for a lifetime of channeling god, meanwhile god has moved on to inspiring someone else in some other corner of the vineyard.
nibbler wrote:…they think that because they did this one thing that it sets them up for a lifetime of channeling god, meanwhile
god has moved onto inspiring someone else in some other corner of the vineyard.
I think the very best a church can hope for is evidence in its fruit that God visits often. We’d be so much better off to call attention to those few brilliant moments than keep up the “my country [prophet] right or wrong” mentality. The wrong is still wrong; the beauty of the truth can’t and shouldn’t be forced to cover what is false or ugly. When we do that, does God move on to people who can better distinguish between the two?What shocked me much more than any wrongdoing on the part of JS was the level of uncertainty in what he was doing. The doctrines that JS taught evolved over time. JS did not know how things would turn out – even though he made many statements at different times to the effect that God had promised success. It was much more of God planting a seed and JS deciding where to take it from there rather than God personally directing or commanding anything. My current view is that JS was a transformative or change leader. He upended the his own little corner of the religious world. I do not see any “sin” violating that perspective of him. I see him in much the same light as MLK. Part of this is that I see him as being sincere and actually caring about the saints. He is not the detached conman. He loved his people and seems to have believed in his divine calling on some level.
Judging them to be true prophets or false prophets is what it is all about. That is the testimony or faith we work through. Do we trust they bring us knowledge and truth from heaven, or are they wolves in sheep’s clothing? For me, the line has moved back and forth as I gain more experience in life, and more knowledge of things. I do not need to cling to a fixed line that if crossed must only lead to the choice of rejecting. Because my end goal is not to measure the prophet. My end goal is to find god and seek his truth, and the prophets are voices in my journey to be happy. They are one data point to be considered in finding truth.
Trusting them requires some evaluation of their character, their intentions, their integrity. So I cannot ignore mistakes that happen. But I cannot only judge by imperfection. I can trust the imperfect person, with hesitance and skepticism, but trust nonetheless. Truly cafeteria style.
FaithfulSkeptic wrote:Quote:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
That’s pretty black & white – I think there are both good and bad fruits that have come from JS, BY, and the current Q15.I see some inconsistency in what you say here, FS. Maybe you can clarify for me.
Scriptures do seem to suggest black and white thinking…good or evil fruit. But they cannot be literal in meaning, because I know of no one claiming to be prophet that is all good, or all bad. You even mention that in your next statement as you see that in JS, BY and the current Q15.
So…if you can see that JS is not all bad fruit…how can you judge them? Is it really so black and white?
To me…it seems like the fruit has to be “good enough” for you to consider it good fruit…even if you know that literally means it is some good and some bad…because there is no perfectly good fruit from anyone.
On many occasions I see the wonderful fruit of the prophet Joseph Smith and ask the reverse question to others…how can you not believe he is an inspired man of god when the fruit of what he did is such a wonderful thing that blesses me and my family? Is that not equally black and white…if there is good fruit…you must believe? (Rhetoric…because I say “no”. I can see good fruit and also see bad fruit in other religions and so I do not believe some things.). I don’t have to believe when the fruit is good, I don’t have to reject when the fruit has some blemishes and isn’t perfect.
We went picking apples this weekend in our orchard. We filled boxes full of beautiful apples. And we had separate boxes filled of worm-ridden, diseased and bug infested apples that we will send to pig farmers who want them free from us. The fruit of the tree was good and we eat it. But not every fruit of the exact same tree was edible. Some is seriously sick and unacceptable. It’s the same tree. How do I judge this fruit? How do I judge the tree? By the bad apples or by the good apples?
For me, I accept it is a good fruit tree when there is enough good fruit on it that I can make some apple crisp (my favorite) and I don’t have bad experiences of every bite leads to bad fruit and bugs and gross stuff. After a while, I just start to trust the good fruit is there based on my experience of eating it…and when the bad stuff is found…I cut it out and reject it…and stick to the good fruit. I would be dumb to keep eating the bad fruit…if I constantly had bad fruit I would reject it and stop eating it, even if I kept trying to be hopeful and positive…at some point…it is just bad stuff.
Judging the “good enough” is where it comes down to. The line that GBSMith talks about, and that taste for the fruit is different for you than for me. I like tobasco sauce…it is good. Others do not and it is evil. The sauce is the same. Our tastes vary. We get to choose what is good fruit to us and what is evil fruit to us…there is not black and white absolutes in matters of taste, perspective, belief, faith, opinion, and trust. You live the principles and judge for yourself.
GBSmith wrote:Why are some OK with serous sins in leaders and for others it’s a deal breaker.
I dunno for everyone. But to me, it is because I read RSR and see mistakes and sins and things I don’t like. Perhaps in my head there is some debate on if there are “serious” sins, as opposed to serious mistakes, or just serious things I don’t understand and don’t like. Perhaps, GB, you can give your serious sin JS did that invalidates him as a prophet to some people, and why someone who saw God at age 14 cannot make any sins the rest of his life and his message of seeing God or translating the book of mormon is proven to be a hoax.
I guess…even if I can be shown there is some serious sin…is it repetitive? Is it debatable? Is it the kind of thing that I can avoid…just like discarding the worm-ridden apples and not eat it…so I can stick to the juicy sweet fruit of the tree? Does the sin overshadow everything else, or is it separate?
Is the fruit of Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission good enough? Or is it all so tainted it is not worth tasting even one apple, for fear it is too great of chance it will lead to eating worms?
I’m interested in how some people draw the line, that if crossed, is the deal breaker and never negotiable. Do we know reality and ourselves well enough, we can be so sure of our judgments of what God can and cannot do with imperfect mortals? Do we know how to judge “serious sins” so black and white?
I also believe that the historical record shows that JS was passionate about his innocence from adultery. Roy wrote:I also believe that the historical record shows that JS was passionate about his innocence from adultery.
This parallels what I just was thinking. We don’t hear a lot of people saying that king David’s sleeping with Bathsheba is making them doubt God. Sure it is far removed, but also David was “punished” and even though he has some good to his name, it is stained. It seems (to me at at least) that the church does not (almost cannot) allow any stain to be attributed to JS – period. I think some of what me and other push on is not that he was perfect, but people try so hard to hold him up as perfect. To counter that there is more attacking of JS himself than those that hold up a perfected JS.GBS – Thanks for pulling this forward. It’s a great topic. From here on – I walk gently.
I adored JS during my TBM days. I also was driven to be a Christ-disciple to the fullest. In my mind they were not synonymous. JS wasn’t Christ. He was just the doorstop that held open the deepest personal connection available to Christ.
Today I still relish much of JS ideals. But they are more geared toward the ideals we never talk about. His eagerness to learn about science, language, histories. I believe he initially believed everyone could have a personal “manifestation” of Christ. Just like he had. I still place hope in his envisionment of how our present life is book ended by productive pre and post mortal lives. No matter how far I run. Even if I resigned those things would stay with me. I dream of the day I get to hang out with my relatives who have passed on. I have a million questions for others who lived before me. I don’t want this life to be the only life. Nor do I want a simple heaven and hell. – However, my certitude that JS knew exactly those things has dipped a lot. I can’t say “I know or We know” like I once did.
The Jesus Christ I still pursue is really a brief sketch of a soul. If I met someone 200 years after he died would I find my vision of him betrayed. I know we say he was perfect. And he may have fulfilled his mission with perfection. Never deviating. But I already catch glimpses when I read the gospels, that his family life wasn’t some picture perfect story. His sisters shrank in dread as he stood up and commented in church. His brothers challenged him to “show himself” to their people. This got him kicked out of their village. (Its where we learn A prophet is without honor in his own country). He even goes so far as to tell his siblings to go up to the festivities and he will go later. All was not well in that Zion. So – is the Christ I adore, worship, and work to be like who I think he is? I don’t know.
I know I look for leaders ahead of me on the path of life. Most of them are perfect and heroic in the beginning. As I get closer every story has warts, sink holes, and disappointment. I don’t know how to amend it. For me I keep pulling the best pieces I can find. Then take them with me. I also thank heaven that I never became anyone of influence in this life. The position is too risky.
mom, I really enjoyed that. Thank you! Quote:So – is the Christ I adore, worship, and work to be like who I think he is? I don’t know.
THIS is the kind of thing I wish we could talk about at church. But when “doubt your doubts” is interpreted mainly as, “don’t depart from the literal, exclusive claims of a not-yet 200 yr. old church,” we don’t get to it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.