Joseph Smith the Prophet

[_Lamanite]

From the Preface of Rough Stone Rolling:

"...it is unlikely there will ever be consensus on Joseph Smith's character or his achievements. The multiplication of scholarly studies and the discovery of new sources have only heightened the controversies surrounding his life. The central difficulty is that Joseph Smith lives on in the faith of the Mormons, like Abraham in Judaism or Muhammad in Islam. Everything about Smith matters to people who have built their lives on his teachings. To protect their own deepest commitments, believers want to shield their prophet's reputation. On the other hand, people who have broken away from Mormonism--and they produce a large amount of the scholarship--have to justify their decision to leave...Given the emotional crosscurrents, agreement will never be reached about his character, his inspiration, or his accomplishments" (emphasis added)

This seems pretty straight forward. As a TBM, I am deeply committed to TCoJCoLDS, and all that it entails. I cannot consider the idea that the cause to which I am committed is patently false. I will not. I received and continue to receive assurance from God that it is right. So I continue on in he path in which I started. I am better for it.

To those that have left or are critical of the Church for one reason or another surely find that there exists a certain commitment to their perspective that allows very little wiggle room. So committed in fact that they seem to be just as dogmatic and bullheaded as we are.

So what to do?

(This glimpse into Joseph has almost nothing to do with the OP except that it shows the Divinity of his calling and his humanity in a single episode.)

Josiah Quincy remarked after a day spent with Joseph that, "You have too much power to be safely trusted to one man."Joseph replied that in Quincy's hands or another person's "so much power would no doubt, be dangerous. I am the only man in the world whom it would be safe to trust with it. Remember, I am a Prophet! The manner of Joseph's answer intrigued Quincy. "The last five words were spoken in a rich, comical aside, as if in hearty recognition of the ridiculous sound they might have in the ears of a Gentile." Joseph knew his visitor was amuse and skeptical, yet remained unfazed, sure of himself no matter what the Bostonian thought."

HA! Priceless Joseph.

Will we ever agree to disagree? Doubt it. But will one of you ever admit that the Joseph restored a Church that has redeemed me from Hell and brought me into the light and Redemption of Jesus Christ. If you can concede this fact, then why fight against it?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_Jason Bourne]

This seems pretty straight forward.

Sure.

As a TBM, I am deeply committed to TCoJCoLDS, and all that it entails.

Yes as I always have been. As less TBM and perhaps more NOM I believe I am still committed though in a different way perhaps than I once was.

I cannot consider the idea that the cause to which I am committed is patently false. I will not.

And this is where I think problems arise. If indeed this is your position and nothing could possibly come up that would change this than what is the point of exploring the issues? I know I used to be that way so I know where you are coming from. However, I can tell you you will limit your world view to the point of a very narrow position and life will be less rich and full. It will also color the way you view others in a way that in my opinion is less than healthy. Alas, this is what the idea of ONE AND ONLY ONE True Church can do. It creates beings that are perilously pious.

I received and continue to receive assurance from God that it is right. So I continue on in he path in which I started. I am better for it.

I am not sure you are better for it but I understand why you think so. Also, assurance from God is fine. Millions of Islamic extremists believe they have similar assurances. Many Born Again Christians are assured that God is telling them that Mormons are not Christian and a Devil spawned cult.

Can you tell me why your God given assurances are better and more right than theirs?

The problem with this is it is entirely subjective.

To those that have left or are critical of the Church for one reason or another surely find that there exists a certain commitment to their perspective that allows very little wiggle room. So committed in fact that they seem to be just as dogmatic and bullheaded as we are

.

Certainly some are yes.

Will we ever agree to disagree? Doubt it. But will one of you ever admit that the Joseph restored a Church that has redeemed me from Hell and brought me into the light and Redemption of Jesus Christ. If you can concede this fact, then why fight against it?

I certainly believe the LDS Church brings souls to God and salvation. I just don't believe it is the only one that can do this. I believe God worked through Joseph but that Joseph got some of his own ideas mixed in, polygamy is at the top and some of the other Nauvoo period ideas among them.

[_Lamanite]

And this is where I think problems arise. If indeed this is your position and nothing could possibly come up that would change this than what is the point of exploring the issues? I know I used to be that way so I know where you are coming from. However, I can tell you you will limit your world view to the point of a very narrow position and life will be less rich and full. It will also color the way you view others in a way that in my opinion is less than healthy. Alas, this is what the idea of ONE AND ONLY ONE True Church can do. It creates beings that are perilously pious.

The point of further exploring issues both now and in the past is the receipt of more and more truth. I'm am willing to entertain any and all ideas. Perhaps they will enrich my life and deepen my faith. But where God has spoken, I will obey, and stay true to the light and knowledge I've received, until I receive further instructions from God.

I am not sure you are better for it but I understand why you think so. Also, assurance from God is fine. Millions of Islamic extremists believe they have similar assurances. Many Born Again Christians are assured that God is telling them that Mormons are not Christian and a Devil spawned cult.

I wholeheartedly support any individual who has received a revelation from God. I encourage all to follow their heart and to follow the promptings God bestows upon them. I will always take issue when the extension of that revelation requires the trampling of human life or the inalienable rights which we derive from our Creator. But for the most part I'm more of a Universalist than most Mormons.

Can you tell me why your God given assurances are better and more right than theirs?

I can't because I don't believe my experience is any more valid than anyone else. If you tell me you prayed about the Book of Mormon and received an answer that it is not true, well then I would suggest you follow God. And I will pat you on the back as you leave the Church and wish you well.

The problem with this is it is entirely subjective.

To be sure. So what is the solution? Berate each other? Or engage in thoughtful discussion in order to learn as opposed to furthering an agenda?

I certainly believe the LDS Church brings souls to God and salvation. I just don't believe it is the only one that can do this. I believe God worked through Joseph but that Joseph got some of his own ideas mixed in, polygamy is at the top and some of the other Nauvoo period ideas among them.

Is Mormonism perfect for every human being on the Earth right now at this very moment? No. Considering the Billions of people with an infinite number of circumstances, I cannot imagine that Mormonism is right for everyone right now. But I will not concede that it is not the only true and living Church on the face of the earth. I just happen to believe that if someone's true spiritual inclination is for Islam, then he/she should follow that path, and Allah will help that person to become all that he/she can become.


Allahuh Akbar!

Lamanite

[_Ray A]

On the other hand, people who have broken away from Mormonism--and they produce a large amount of the scholarship--have to justify their decision to leave...Given the emotional crosscurrents, agreement will never be reached about his character, his inspiration, or his accomplishments" (emphasis added)

The problem I see with this is that almost all of the critical scholarship I've read on Joseph Smith has come from Mormons, albeit the "Sunstone types", but still Mormons. You may find this hard to believe, but apart from Brodie (who wasn't anti-Mormon in my opinion) and Walter Martin, I never read any anti-Mormon literature until after I left the Church. Six months after I left I went through the Tanners' Shadow Or Reality?.

I wouldn't call this "self-justification". I didn't subscribe to Dialogue, Sunstone, BYU Studies and The Journal of Mormon History, nor did I read the Journal of Discourses, and the seven volume History of the Church just so that I could "justify" leaving. That's a decision you come to when you decide that the "cog.diss" is too much.

In my genuine but brief returns to the Church I wasn't seeking "justification". I just didn't realise that you can't go to the same movie twice and expect a different ending.

[_Lamanite]

On the other hand, people who have broken away from Mormonism--and they produce a large amount of the scholarship--have to justify their decision to leave...Given the emotional crosscurrents, agreement will never be reached about his character, his inspiration, or his accomplishments" (emphasis added)

The problem I see with this is that almost all of the critical scholarship I've read on Joseph Smith has come from Mormons, albeit the "Sunstone types", but still Mormons. You may find this hard to believe, but apart from Brodie (who wasn't anti-Mormon in my opinion) and Walter Martin, I never read any anti-Mormon literature until after I left the Church. Six months after I left I went through the Tanners' Shadow Or Reality?.

I wouldn't call this "self-justification". I didn't subscribe to Dialogue, Sunstone, BYU Studies and The Journal of Mormon History, nor did I read the Journal of Discourses, and the seven volume History of the Church just so that I could "justify" leaving. That's a decision you come to when you decide that the "cog.diss" is too much.

In my genuine but brief returns to the Church I wasn't seeking "justification". I just didn't realise that you can't go to the same movie twice and expect a different ending.

I can only guess at what Bushman was "really" saying and how it might apply to you. I think you "justify" your leaving the Church by coming to the realization that it is not what it purports to be. At that point you are intellectually and emotionally invested in that position, which makes dialogue a very difficult thing. Especially when I am equally invested in my own opposing viewpoint.

I think you and I have done a good job at disagreeing without being disagreeable. But when discussing the life and character of Joseph Smith, I fear that not only will we not be on the same page, we will be in different books at either ends of the Library.

Big UP!

Lamanite- Death to the England Saxons!

Tongan-Sipi Tau! CHECK IT!

[_Ray A]

I can only guess at what Bushman was "really" saying and how it might apply to you. I think you "justify" your leaving the Church by coming to the realization that it is not what it purports to be. At that point you are intellectually and emotionally invested in that position, which makes dialogue a very difficult thing. Especially when I am equally invested in my own opposing viewpoint.

I think I have a good understanding of what belief is all about, and even various levels, or degrees of belief. I certainly know what it's like to have a "heart-thumping TBM testimony" (pre-1985), and then over the years observe it fizzle out. I think logic and thinking rationally has almost nothing to do with true belief. It's an emotional experience that allows a person to believe almost anything, even the absurd. But it's nevertheless a genuine personal experience, which one really believes comes from God. I'd love for you to hear the testimonies of some of the more fanatical Muslims I've met through my work. They would not consider the Book of Mormon as being true for micro-second. The last one I talked to had recently come back from Mecca, and he was glowing with testimony.

I think you and I have done a good job at disagreeing without being disagreeable. But when discussing the life and character of Joseph Smith, I fear that not only will we not be on the same page, we will be in different books at either ends of the Library.

Joseph Smith was a very complex person. I think Dan Vogel may have given us the most accurate picture of him.

Prophet Puzzle.

But I'm never static in my views on such matters.

[Guest]

Having a belief or testimony of something is very much an "emotional" experience. Two things though that I'd like to add to my admission of the emotional nature of spirituality.

First, I use the word "emotional" only because it is the only word available to me that best describes what is going on inside of me. More accurately what I feel is the result of God writing upon my heart that which is indelible, while the Holy Spirit seals it into my being. It is complete and perfect peace of mind and soul. It transcends the English language. It is a wonderful flood of light. And I sometimes call this experience "emotional". Laughable that God's communication with His children is limited to such an inadequate word.

Second, Spiritually emotional experiences do not negate the intellectual aspects of human/spiritual experience. I think you and I have talked enough to know that my experience was not without hours and weeks and months and years of intensive study and prayer. It is your extreme bias that causes you to make statements like, "I think logic and thinking rationally has almost nothing to do with true belief." This is false in my case. And since your statement was absolute it is absolutely false. Moreover, the Church's mantra for seeking truth is to do so by study and also by faith.

Finally, I've read Vogel's biography of Joseph, and he falls victim to his own bias. Just as Bushman does. This isn't bad, it just is. It's the recognition of these biases that gives context to the reading.

I'm just hoping we can recognize the tendency we have to protect our deep commitments and still engage in meaningful dialogue.

Big UP!

Lamanite

We can surely

[_Danna]

The OP implies that people leave the church, and then justify their leaving. Like the common belief that exmos leave so that they can sin (rather than staying and sinning quietly). In my experience it is the other way around. Discovering the truth, and then finding reasons to stay. Because, contrary to TBM views, it is actually easier to stay.

McConkine's Mormon Doctrine was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. He described in plain language the sequalae of taking the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C literally.

[_Lamanite]

The OP implies that people leave the church, and then justify their leaving. Like the common belief that exmos leave so that they can sin (rather than staying and sinning quietly). In my experience it is the other way around. Discovering the truth, and then finding reasons to stay. Because, contrary to TBM views, it is actually easier to stay.

McConkine's Mormon Doctrine was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. He described in plain language the sequalae of taking the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C literally.

People justify their staying in the Church just as people leaving it justify their decision. It's your bias that caused you to gloss over this part of the OP. And that's cool, it's to be expected.

"Everything about Smith matters to people who have built their lives on his teachings. To protect their own deepest commitments, believers want to shield their prophet's reputation."


Big UP!

Lamanite

[_antishock8]

And in a twist of perfect irony this is your ad banner: