Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Kishkumen »

So, as we contemplate the recent spate of excommunications, I think it would be worth our while to read the recent blog offering from the learned and insightful Corbin Volluz:

http://rationalfaiths.com/apostasy-now/

Corbin's analyzes the similarities and differences between the recent excommunications of John Dehlin And Rock Waterman, and then comes to this interesting conclusion: the one thing they had in common was that they questioned the divine calling of the leadership.

Now, at first this may seem shocking. After all, doesn't making obeying the leader so central to the definition of being in full faith and fellowship, and defining the opposite as apostasy seem kind of cultish?

Yes, I think it does. But Mormonism is not a cult or even particularly cultish. It is a major global religious denomination with over 15 million members. So, what is the deal with excommunicating people for questioning the divine calling of the leaders? Well, as it turns out, this action has a very solid doctrinal and historical foundation, going back to the early Mormon Church. It was particularly well articulated, however, during the period of the Reformation in 1850s Utah.

It is essentially this. Since we are all in this great priesthood chain that goes back to Christ through Peter, and it is necessary to have the proper priesthood authority in order to have efficacious ordinances, then your baptism, confirmation, priesthood, endowment, and the whole Megillah is dependent upon your connection to the priesthood. Since Joseph Smith, who received the priesthood from the resurrected Peter, is the font of priesthood for all Mormons, and he is now exalted, then he is your channel or branch through which you receive salvation.

As Heber C. Kimball explained in 1857:

“We receive the Spirit of Jesus as he receives it from the Father, and we receive it from the Son, or down through the channel of the Holy Priesthood from the Father; then we are like one vine or one tree, the Father being the root, and the Son of God the tree or vine that sprung from the Father, and we are the branches, or this Church is the main branch sprung from that vine. Then, inasmuch as we abide in Joseph or in Brigham, and then Brigham abides in Joseph, and Joseph in Peter, and Peter in Jesus, and then Jesus in the Father, don’t you see we are one? And then we will extend it to the Twelve in these last days; they are one with the First Presidency, and then the Seventies with the Twelve, and then the High Priests and other officers.”


So, it very easy to see how rejecting the divinely called apostles of God is, essentially, apostasy. Apostasy, in Greek, means to stand away or apart from something. The rejection of those who hold the priesthood keys simply is apostasy.

Denver and Rock can say whatever they want about where they feel the leaders of the LDS Church has gone astray. People can refer to the Corporation of the First Presidency or any other thing they find oppressive, objectionable, out of order, or what have you. The simple fact is that, from the perspective of the leaders themselves, they bear keys of the priesthood that go back to Peter and Christ. They do, in fact, believe that. Arguments along different lines will of course appear apostate and, frankly, stupid.

So, if you are not prepared to accept God's appointed priesthood leaders on the earth, then you are an apostate and you will be excommunicated for your own sake. An error of this magnitude can only be corrected by excommunication. Hopefully, it will be done in as loving a way as possible. If you argue as effectively as Rock did, then people may be freaked out by how sly your Satanic deception is--the one through which you seek to separate others from the only true priesthood authority from Christ--but they are not going to buy the idea that their own priesthood and that of their leaders is bogus. They have enjoyed too many of its sweet fruits to have what you are saying sound anything other than completely insane. If you know what is good for you, you will reflect upon where you went wrong, and consider this saving creed, intoned by Joseph Young in 1857:

"Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph his Prophet, and in Brigham Young his successor." And I add, “If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph was a Prophet, and that Brigham was his successor, you shall be saved in the kingdom of God.”
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Chap »

Kishkumen wrote: ... they are not going to buy the idea that their own priesthood and that of their leaders is bogus. They have enjoyed too many of its sweet fruits to have what you are saying sound anything other than completely insane. If you know what is good for you, you will reflect upon where you went wrong, and consider this saving creed, intoned by Joseph Young in 1857:

"Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph his Prophet, and in Brigham Young his successor." And I add, “If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph was a Prophet, and that Brigham was his successor, you shall be saved in the kingdom of God.”


If I were a praying man, I'd be praying that you were joking.

But I half suspect that you are serious. Even about 'the sweet fruits of the priesthood' enjoyed by the leadership, such as the really nice health plans, the credit cards, the uncritical adulation, and so on.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Kishkumen »

Chap wrote:If I were a praying man, I'd be praying that you were joking.

But I half suspect that you are serious. Even about 'the sweet fruits of the priesthood' enjoyed by the leadership, such as the really nice health plans, the credit cards, the uncritical adulation, and so on.


Joking about what, Chap? What I am saying here is that if you adopt the perspective of the guys who lead the LDS Church, and assume that they are tuned into the whole thing spiritually, then of course guys like Dehlin and Waterman are obviously apostates. Now, we can cynically identify the sweet fruits of the priesthood as being the adulation, vacation homes, and hefty salaries, but I think they would include the joys of service and the feelings of the Spirit that they enjoy as they go about their callings. Remember how spiritually intoxicating Tom Phillips found the experience of the second anointing in the temple. If you look at these things somewhat more sympathetically, then it becomes easier to see why the leaders do what they do. It is easier to see why they come to the conclusions they do about people like Rock and John.

My point here is not to convince other people that the "Church is true" or to say that this is all peachy in some kind of absolute, objective sense. I am trying to understand, in a very straightforward way, what is going on.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Chap »

Kishkumen wrote:
Chap wrote:If I were a praying man, I'd be praying that you were joking.

But I half suspect that you are serious. Even about 'the sweet fruits of the priesthood' enjoyed by the leadership, such as the really nice health plans, the credit cards, the uncritical adulation, and so on.


Joking about what, Chap? What I am saying here is that if you adopt the perspective of the guys who lead the LDS Church, and assume that they are tuned into the whole thing spiritually ...


Since I don't any longer buy into the deal that the expression 'tuned in spiritually', has any real reference apart from getting high on mutual reassurance, mass adulation and fantasies of power and privilege, that assumption is not one I can make in those terms.

But I am sure that the old guys at the top feel really good about excluding those pesky nuisances from their imaginary tree-house. How could they not? Power over others is always sweet, no matter where it comes from.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Kishkumen »

Chap wrote:Since I don't any longer buy into the deal that the expression 'tuned in spiritually', has any real reference apart from getting high on mutual reassurance, mass adulation and fantasies of power and privilege, that assumption is not one I can make in those terms.

But I am sure that the old guys at the top feel really good about excluding those pesky nuisances from their imaginary tree-house. How could they not? Power over others is always sweet, no matter where it comes from.


LOL. Well, characterize it as best suits your worldview or personal comfort. How about "emotional rewards"? There are numerous rank and file Mormons who converted to Mormonism based on such rewards and who continue active in the faith because they experience the same rewarding emotions.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Chap »

Kishkumen wrote:
Chap wrote:Since I don't any longer buy into the deal that the expression 'tuned in spiritually', has any real reference apart from getting high on mutual reassurance, mass adulation and fantasies of power and privilege, that assumption is not one I can make in those terms.

But I am sure that the old guys at the top feel really good about excluding those pesky nuisances from their imaginary tree-house. How could they not? Power over others is always sweet, no matter where it comes from.


LOL. Well, characterize it as best suits your worldview or personal comfort. How about "emotional rewards"? There are numerous rank and file Mormons who converted to Mormonism based on such rewards and who continue active in the faith because they experience the same rewarding emotions.


Now you're talking. "I do X because I find it emotionally rewarding" is an honest, open and unpretentious way of speaking. And unlike "I am tuned into X spiritually" it does not make a claim for the validity of a view of the cosmos that many (me at least) have come to see as meaningless.

Of course, some people (because after all "the unexamined life is unlivable for man") find themselves asking the question "Is it proper to find emotional satisfaction in X?" or "Is finding emotional satisfaction in X consistent with my exercising my powers of critical reasoning to the full?" With people like that, one can have some interesting conversations.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Kishkumen »

Chap wrote:Now you're talking. "I do X because I find it emotionally rewarding" is an honest, open and unpretentious way of speaking. And unlike "I am tuned into X spiritually" it does not make a claim for the validity of a view of the cosmos that many (me at least) have come to see as meaningless.


OK.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Symmachus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Symmachus »

Kishkumen,

Your post is a salutary antidote to the conspiracy narratives that have too much currency in post/ex/NOMormon circles. I have always been turned off by these narratives, partly because they're ultimately solipsistic, but mostly because, when someone's stated motivations perfectly explain their behavior, there is no rational reason to doubt those stated motivations or to impute other motivations to them. There are plenty of irrational reasons to do that, of course.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _zeezrom »

... justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

Post by _Kishkumen »

Symmachus wrote:Kishkumen,

Your post is a salutary antidote to the conspiracy narratives that have too much currency in post/ex/NOMormon circles. I have always been turned off by these narratives, partly because they're ultimately solipsistic, but mostly because, when someone's stated motivations perfectly explain their behavior, there is no rational reason to doubt those stated motivations or to impute other motivations to them. There are plenty of irrational reasons to do that, of course.


Thank you, consul. What fascinates me particularly is clear centrality of authority in Mormon theology coupled with the scandal of the same. In the early decades after Joseph Smith's assassination, he was very frankly portrayed as the deified man upon whom your salvation (won by Christ) was in some sense contingent. Reject Joseph and you will not be saved. These days, leaders and members seem/are scandalized and embarrassed by this theology. Yet, when it comes to the order of the priesthood and the terms of membership, the logic of this theology is still in force. Rejection of the authority of your leaders is apostasy in Mormonism.

One might say that the devil's bargain the leaders made is that in order to spread the gospel, increase the number of members, and go more mainstream, they soft-pedaled the brute facts of LDS theology. The leaders say, "it is important to obey," when what they really mean is, "you will not be saved without passing through the judgment of your leaders, who will judge your obedience to them in your lifetime." To say the former sounds dull and annoying, to say the latter seems nuts in today's world. The former message is the now the message. It worked, in that the LDS Church grew by leaps and bounds, but now many members are ignorant of this theology at best and functionally apostate at worst.

So members are puzzled by the leader "worship," focus on Joseph Smith, etc. They chafe at the idea that close alignment with the leaders is necessary for being in full fellowship. Instead, like the good Protestants many of them used to be, they focus on their own relationship with Jesus, are horrified by "Smithmas," and no one who really understands the truth can bear to be open about it. Those in the know divine, correctly, that the leaders they are obeying don't want them to be frank about it. So, they aren't.

This may be why apologists are always telling people their apostasy is their own fault for not studying sufficiently. They know that the public discourse is partial and that no one can cop to the real deal. It's a real catch 22, since to be frank about the real terms of membership is to be disobedient. So, yes, if you don't pick up from somewhere this theology and its full implications, all the dreary leader stuff will seem pointless and offensive. The ignorant members think, "why do we talk about Joseph Smith so much?" Or, "what is wrong with these leaders who think they can play God?" The truth is that the leaders know and are following the theology of priesthood and salvation in Mormonism.

This is all quite a stunning revelation to me. Oh, I have been vaguely aware of all of this intellectually for some time. But I don't think I ever fully internalized it. Now that I have started to internalize it, it disturbs me greatly. I have to admit, at long last and without a trace of irony, that I am an apostate. As an apostate, I have to confess to feeling betrayed by the Church's obfuscation of its real theology. Oh, sure, the evidence for that theology can be found here and there, if you know what to look for. Once you see it, you realize it was the snake that would have bit you.

But, I regret the fact that it was not promulgated sufficiently. It would have been so much easier to place myself properly had I only heard clearly from the pulpit on a more regular basis that my salvation depends on my leaders' approbation. Had I known and internalized the teaching that my eternal reward really was contingent upon the judgment of Gordon B. Hinckley, Joseph Smith, and Jesus, then I could have decided very easily what I thought about that and acted accordingly.

Do I deny hearing this before? I do not. I have heard this before from a temple president in a lecture in the temple. It was put to me as clearly as that too. At the time I was so emotionally besotted with the mysteries that this simply seemed logical, if somewhat odd. I thought at the time that I was listening to some elderly guy offering his interesting speculation--i.e., he was reasoning that it is in heaven as it is on earth, so to speak. I did not understand I was actually getting the real dope.

Maybe an apologist will say that I have once again blown it. Ole looney Kish is spreading false apostate doctrine once again. In a sense, they would be right because I am surely sharing a message that is out of line with the message of the Brethren. But, from another perspective--that of Mormon history and the dynamics of the organization, I don't think so. Too many things come into crystal clear focus once the significance of this theology is recognized. This *is* the theology of priesthood and salvation. This is why obedience to authority is so crucial to Mormons. I now see clearly why these excommunications are happening. I understand why it is that my apostasy was so clear to others while being confusing for me. Now I see why cafeteria Mormonism only works inasmuch as the leaders set the buffet and tell you what you must eat.

I have a lot to think about.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply