Mormon REVERENCE FOR JOSEPH SMITH

[_moksha]

Here is another Beliefnet Mormon Issues forum thought from Mormon philosopher Bill Kilpatrick:

We say as a church that we do not worship our prophets. However we sing 'Praise To The Man' in many of our church services. Does this song, that praises Joseph Smith, not prove that at least some of us do worship Joseph and others."

The distinction between "praise" and "worship" ought to be a meaningful one, but it's far too easy to make it a matter of semantics. One person's praise is another person's worship, which is the problem with basing any religious movement on the ideas of an individual, who gets bashed by outsiders and then defended by the faithful. The attempt to defend the good name of someone you hold in highest esteem can blur the line between admiration and reverence, and between praise and outright worship. Every religious movement that identifies with the struggles and insights of a single, unifying, figure is in danger of becoming a form of idolatry.

Mormons are not alone in this.

Judaism is really a set of conventions, rules about what it means to be a "Jew." Ordinarily, no such rules would be necessary, as being born a Jew and living in a Jewish world, would take care of itself. But Judaism clearly wasn't invented by Jews living in a free Jewish state. It was invented by Jews living in Babylonia, Jews who were worried about losing their Jewish identity, Jews who adapted Babylonian stories to create their own national literature.

Judaism may owe more to Ezra, the great redactor, than to anyone else - for this great scholar (who represents what was likely a committee of scholars) took all of the various Jewish stories, legends, myths and histories and redacted them into the Hebrew Bible we call The Old Testament. But, like any good director, Ezra is largely out of sight. His actions (representing that of the nameless, faceless, committee of elders who edited the Old Testament) are to be found reflected in the text.

The figure credited for the creation of Judaism, Moses, is a figure of dubious historicity. There isn't a scrap of evidence - in Egypt or Palestine - to show he ever existed. Moses' purpose is to create a figure around which the Exodus and the Law can be based. It's ironic that the first five books of the Old Testament, "The Five Books of Moses," were likely written by someone else - since Moses dies before the end, buried - as it were - by the hand of God.

Moses' famous inability to enter the promised land - which is attributed to his slapping of a rock - is functional. By barring Moses from the promised land, the text strips Moses of his humanity. Without his bones, we are left with who, like God himself, remains both airy and mysterious.

It's interesting to note the number of such figures who have similarly been removed - completely - from tangibility. Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire. Jesus arose and ascended. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to have ascended. John, the Beloved, was changed so that he would never die - which means he wanders the Earth, but without notice. The Book of Mormon does something similar to the Three Nephites. Muhammad is also believed to have ascended to heaven. Ironically, Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, is said to have announced his own impending death, ate a final meal, felt violently ill, informed the cook that it wasn't the food, and died. The Buddha didn't ascend to anything; he was cremated and his ashes used for monuments.

Every religious tradition with a visible founder is in danger of worshiping the Founder. Jews have been accused of worshiping Moses, though the focus on the Law as an impersonal way of living in harmony with God, whose name they don't pronounce, suggests something far less than worship.

Christians have been accused of worshiping Jesus, which is the primary difference between Christianity and Judaism or Islam, both of which cringe at the degree to which the Christian story is centered around a single figure, Jesus of Nazareth. Whether you accept Jesus as God Incarnate or as The Son of God, the very name, Christian, denotes the cult of Jesus.

Muslims, also, have trouble with the distinction between honor and worship - particularly when it comes to Muhammad. The traditional ban on images of the Muslim prophet may be based on a desire to avoid any idol worship, yet the extreme reverence devoted to his name speaks otherwise. How many figures do you know of whose very name requires the words, "Peace be upon him"? You can't speak the name of Muhammad without also saying, "Peace be upon him." If that isn't worship, I don't know what is.


Mormon REVERENCE FOR JOSEPH SMITH

As I look at the degree to which Joseph Smith was fetishized by first-century Mormons, it becomes clear to me that what was acceptable then is not acceptable today.

In Joseph Smith's 1844 account, where he speaks of meeting God the Father and Jesus Christ, he includes the story of Moroni's visit and the prophecy that his own name would be had for good and evil among all nations. Clearly, Joseph Smith saw himself as a divisive figure, which is to say he saw himself as the dividing line between Mormons and the rest of the world. We can speak of Mormons as Christians - and go on about how the name of the Mormon Church is "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But the major distinction between Mormons and the rest of the world is not a belief in Jesus. It's the belief in the prophetic ministry of Joseph Smith.

That doesn't mean that Mormons worship Joseph Smith. It does, however, mean that, for Mormons, the test of faith has not been whether or not to accept Jesus as the Messiah, but whether or not one accepts Joseph Smith as his Latter-day prophet. At a time when Mormons were reviled for their belief in Joseph Smith, Mormons responded with expressions of faith and devotion to the memory of their slain prophet.

It's to be expected. Doing so, of course, reinforced the stereotype that Mormons weren't Christians and that Mormons were simply worshipers of Joseph Smith. But militant external aggression has a tendency to produce militant domestic aggression. So the more people bashed Joseph, the more good Mormons rallied behind the man, even if Joseph can't be considered the focal point of any Christian community.

And here we are, more than a hundred years after the renunciation of polygamy and the ushering in of an age of Mormonism as part of the mainstream. It's at this point that we have to wonder whether such militancy, bordering on worship, is appropriate to our age. I would suggest it is not. In fact, if the Church has done anything during the last 30 years, it has been to let up on the emphasis of Joseph Smith. After nearly a century-and-a-half of presenting the Gospel from the perspective of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, there has been an increasing push to refocus the message around Jesus Christ.

This is not an easy thing to do, because what makes Mormons unique is the message of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. De-emphasize that and you end up without momentum. But there's a problem: The Restored Gospel of Mormonism is part of a context of Restorationism. Without that context, the logic and appeal of Mormonism are as lost as the idea of the atonement apart from the context of a frustrated Judaism.


SO, WHAT ABOUT SONGS LIKE PRAISE TO THE MAN?

The day is coming when such songs will be mothballed as no longer suitable for Sunday worship. Praise to the Man will still be a Mormon hymn, sung in firesides and as part of a larger framework of Mormon cultural history, but it will eventually be left out of the Church hymnal because its enthusiastic lines, while a message of solidarity to an earlier generation, are no longer appropriate as the Church makes its way through the third millennium.

In a future edition of the Church Hymnal, a number of songs once cherished will be replaced by newer, more doctrinally timely, hymns - hymns causing far fewer controversies.

[_harmony]

I like him. Thanks for bringing his posts here, Moksha.

[_moksha]

I like him. Thanks for bringing his posts here, Moksha.

This is the kind of thing that I wish MAD posters could read, but I would just be in trouble with the Moderators if I brought it there.

[_harmony]

I like him. Thanks for bringing his posts here, Moksha.

This is the kind of thing that I wish MAD posters could read, but I would just be in trouble with the Moderators if I brought it there.

Be assured. They read it here. They just want to keep the little penquin in the dark about their addiction to this board.

[_Inconceivable]

...We say as a church that we do not worship our prophets. However we sing 'Praise To The Man' in many of our church services. Does this song, that praises Joseph Smith, not prove that at least some of us do worship Joseph and others."

SO, WHAT ABOUT SONGS LIKE PRAISE TO THE MAN?

The day is coming when such songs will be mothballed as no longer suitable for Sunday worship. Praise to the Man will still be a Mormon hymn, sung in firesides and as part of a larger framework of Mormon cultural history, but it will eventually be left out of the Church hymnal because its enthusiastic lines, while a message of solidarity to an earlier generation, are no longer appropriate as the Church makes its way through the third millennium.

In a future edition of the Church Hymnal, a number of songs once cherished will be replaced by newer, more doctrinally timely, hymns - hymns causing far fewer controversies.

Some thought provoking points here, Moksha. It hits a nerve tonight.

I recall on the mission in '83 when the "restoration" discussion was trumped by "our relationship to Christ".

Regardless, it didn't change how I felt about Joseph Smith at the time.

Up until a few years ago, I idolized Joseph Smith as one of my most revered heros. He was one of my best friends. I would have gladly taken a bullet for him. He was a righteous man beyond reproach, he was so pure in heart that he saw the face of God, communed with Him - and lived. He was faithful to his word and convictions. He was chaste in all respects and had so few character flaws that he was never convicted of anything he was accused of though the very bowels of hell raged against him. He was a reflection of the thirteenth article of faith. Those bloodthirsty mobs were wicked men influenced by so called "Christian" men of the cloth. Didn't Jesus have the same problem in his own country? It wasn't so difficult to believe this cannonized scripture from the mouth of an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ - later to be called by revelation to succeed Brigham Young as the next prophet, seer and revelator:

3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it...
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 135:3)


It makes me sick even to reflect on what I thought to be true. Isn't this what we are really talking about here?

Shame on Farms. Shame on the apologists. Shame on those that know what I now know and call good evil and evil good.

Whatever they end up doing with him, the truth has been bitter and a betrayal of a sacred trust.


The internet has been a catalyst in producing a crack that is perhaps beyond their capacity to patch. I think there is now a much larger problem than the shelving of a song or two.

"The bigger they are, the harder they fall", comes to mind.

rant off.

[_Polygamy Porter]

It is required that you must see the doorman before one can see Jesus Christ in the house called Mormon. The doorman is Joseph Smith Jr.

You cannot be a Mormon without devotion to Smith and thereby everything he wrote. With that, Mormonism is more about believing in Smith than Jesus.

[_The Nehor]

It is required that you must see the doorman before one can see Jesus Christ in the house called Mormon. The doorman is Joseph Smith Jr.

You cannot be a Mormon without devotion to Smith and thereby everything he wrote. With that, Mormonism is more about believing in Smith than Jesus.

I distinctly remember more parts of the Missionary Discussions having to do with Christ then Joseph. Christ came before him too. It may be anecdotal but my discussions with LDS in and out of Church involve much more discussion of Christ than Joseph. Working out our salvation just doesn't have much to do with Joseph. He's a messenger, Christ is the message.

[_Inconceivable]

You cannot be a Mormon without devotion to Smith and thereby everything he wrote. With that, Mormonism is more about believing in Smith than Jesus.

well, not everything he wrote. In public he vehemently denied any connection with poligamy or anything like it. Of course, a fair portion of The Nauvoo Expositor parallels what his devotees would now testify to and are perfectly at peace with. What a mess.


...But I know that's what you meant.

[_Polygamy Porter]

It is required that you must see the doorman before one can see Jesus Christ in the house called Mormon. The doorman is Joseph Smith Jr.

You cannot be a Mormon without devotion to Smith and thereby everything he wrote. With that, Mormonism is more about believing in Smith than Jesus.

I distinctly remember more parts of the Missionary Discussions having to do with Christ then Joseph. Christ came before him too. It may be anecdotal but my discussions with LDS in and out of Church involve much more discussion of Christ than Joseph. Working out our salvation just doesn't have much to do with Joseph. He's a messenger, Christ is the message.

Horse hooey.

The Smith version of Christ, the smith version of salvation, the smith version of god. Wake up and smell it Nehor. It reeks and it is the odor of SMITH.

The missionaries STILL tell the unwitting to read certain parts of the Book of Mormon and to receive a "witness" of it's divinity, thereby receiving a parallel witness of the divinity of Joseph Smith.

Once a person is told they have a witness of Smith, then everything else is gravy. After that whatever smith said/wrote/implied goes.

[_twinkie]

It is required that you must see the doorman before one can see Jesus Christ in the house called Mormon. The doorman is Joseph Smith Jr.

You cannot be a Mormon without devotion to Smith and thereby everything he wrote. With that, Mormonism is more about believing in Smith than Jesus.

I distinctly remember more parts of the Missionary Discussions having to do with Christ then Joseph. Christ came before him too. It may be anecdotal but my discussions with LDS in and out of Church involve much more discussion of Christ than Joseph. Working out our salvation just doesn't have much to do with Joseph. He's a messenger, Christ is the message.

If only that were true, Nehor. I have been a member for just over a year and you're right, the missionary discussions had to do with Christ. However, once they got me in the pews, all I heard was, "joseph joseph joseph" or "the church the church the church."