Thoughts on Joseph Smith's imperfections

[theoriginalavatar]

A Blessed Morning to Each of You,

I have been pondering a great deal lately about Joseph Smith and what he means to me on a personal spiritual level. Before I say what I am about to say, I want to be very clear that these sentiments are a reflection of my personal feelings, and I completely understand if they do not make sense for (or to) everyone else. We each have our own path to travel, even within the church.

Joseph Smith. So many people within the church place the prophet on a greatly elevated pedestal. They do this for good reason. Joseph Smith was a brilliant man and one would be hard pressed to find a person who has done more to care for and promote the salvation of man. I agree with these sentiments. I do not, however, believe in brushing his mistakes under the proverbial rug.

I am a convert as well as an academic, and as such I have always taken every matter of spirituality (in all areas of doctrine, but LDS dogma in particular) and placed it inexorably under the microscope of sceptical inquiry. Joseph Smith was a special project for me. I didn't dig and stare into the dark abyss in order to disprove him, but rather to create in my own mind a place whereby I could place him in faith. I think I have examined ad infinitum every aspect of his fallibility. I have "seen" him at his darkest as well as his most enlightened. I have poured over his so-called "failed prophesies" and have rejoiced with him in the eternal truths he revealed. In the end, I have come to a very valuable and deeply spiritual revelation (which may, perhaps, only ring with profound meaning to me and may be commonly held knowledge by others): Joseph Smith was an imperfect, capable-of-error, all-too-human, prophet of God.

Some choose to place him upon a pedestal that few could ever hope to see, let alone rest upon. I cannot and will not do this. To focus on Joseph Smith's humanity (his fallibility) would be, for some, a faith-destroying activity. For me, it has had exactly the opposite effect. The very fact that Joseph Smith made mistakes, got angry on occasion, displayed pride, etc. has served to strengthen my testimony in him as a prophet of God. A person who was not perfect (and indeed only the Savior was ever capable of perfection) is someone in whom I can trust and, more importantly, relate. Perfection remains ever a goal for me (and all of us, I'm sure) but ever in the distance as well. Joseph Smith was a prophet and a man. The prophet I can respect and follow. The man I can understand and relate to.

Does anyone else feel this way? I am not at all certain if I have even been clear in what I am trying to say.

Edited December 22, 2009 by theoriginalavatar

[Relentless]

So I take it you are targeting people whom you feel place too much "faith" in the Prophet? I for one feel as though this man is to be revered because of all that he did and all that he overcame. However, I will not be so bold as to say he was perfect. I am intrigued by your use of "all-too-human".

[theoriginalavatar]

So I take it you are targeting people whom you feel place too much "faith" in the Prophet? I for one feel as though this man is to be revered because of all that he did and all that he overcame. However, I will not be so bold as to say he was perfect. I am intrigued by your use of "all-too-human".

I can see how you might come to that conclusion based on what I've written, but I didn't mean it quite in that way.

I teach Gospel Doctrine, and I have found that, on occasion, when I bring up a piece of the prophet's history that may be somewhat controversial, I am met with stony-faced looks and silence. I never do this to undermine people's beliefs and faith in the prophet, but I have begun to realize that some view in in precisely this regard.

I have learned to be more guarded in what I say, so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities, but it has made me wonder. I have gone through a LOT of research on my path to the church (perhaps more than I should have needed to), and nothing I have ever read has ever done anything but strengthen my faith in Joseph Smith. And yes, I have read all the lies as well as the hidden truths about him.

I love the brothers and sisters in my class very much, and I with them no discomfort in my class. It has just been eye-opening to me, I suppose, that people were unwilling to discuss what, for me, has always been faith-promoting.

[Relentless]

Did you read the theories that he was a high level Mason, and he was assasinated by other masons because the book of mormon is actually masonic teachings that were not to be revealed to non masons?

I know he was a mason, but to my knowledge he never acheived a high rank (not that I know what their rank structure is), and I do not believe that he took their teachings and morphed it into the Book of Mormon.

[theoriginalavatar]

Did you read the theories that he was a high level Mason, and he was assasinated by other masons because the book of mormon is actually masonic teachings that were not to be revealed to non masons?

I have read that, yes. I wrote a long paper on that very thing for one of my classes at the university many years ago.

The arguments that he used masonic symbolism and ritual are compelling (and, in some cases, obvious), although I believe that there were much deeper and ultimately God-given reasons for the similarities.

I know he was a mason, but to my knowledge he never acheived a high rank (not that I know what their rank structure is), and I do not believe that he took their teachings and morphed it into the Book of Mormon.

I am not a masonic scholar by any stretch, but my understanding is that levels (or degrees) held or attained within freemasonry are not indicative of status.

Forgive me, but I am not following you in where you are going with this.

[HiJolly]

A Blessed Morning to Each of You,

I have been pondering a great deal lately about Joseph Smith and what he means to me on a personal spiritual level. Before I say what I am about to say, I want to be very clear that these sentiments are a reflection of my personal feelings, and I completely understand if they do not make sense for (or to) everyone else. We each have our own path to travel, even within the church.

Joseph Smith. So many people within the church place the prophet on a greatly elevated pedestal. They do this for good reason. Joseph Smith was a brilliant man and one would be hard pressed to find a person who has done more to care for and promote the salvation of man. I agree with these sentiments. I do not, however, believe in brushing his mistakes under the proverbial rug.

I am a convert as well as an academic, and as such I have always taken every matter of spirituality (in all areas of doctrine, but LDS dogma in particular) and placed it inexorably under the microscope of sceptical inquiry. Joseph Smith was a special project for me. I didn't dig and stare into the dark abyss in order to disprove him, but rather to create in my own mind a place whereby I could place him in faith. I think I have examined ad infinitum every aspect of his fallibility. I have "seen" him at his darkest as well as his most enlightened. I have poured over his so-called "failed prophesies" and have rejoiced with him in the eternal truths he revealed. In the end, I have come to a very valuable and deeply spiritual revelation (which may, perhaps, only ring with profound meaning to me and may be commonly held knowledge by others): Joseph Smith was an imperfect, capable-of-error, all-too-human, prophet of God.

Some choose to place him upon a pedestal that few could ever hope to see, let alone rest upon. I cannot and will not do this. To focus on Joseph Smith's humanity (his fallibility) would be, for some, a faith-destroying activity. For me, it has had exactly the opposite effect. The very fact that Joseph Smith made mistakes, got angry on occasion, displayed pride, etc. has served to strengthen my testimony in him as a prophet of God. A person who was not perfect (and indeed only the Savior was ever capable of perfection) is someone in whom I can trust and, more importantly, relate. Perfection remains ever a goal for me (and all of us, I'm sure) but ever in the distance as well. Joseph Smith was a prophet and a man. The prophet I can respect and follow. The man I can understand and relate to.

Does anyone else feel this way? I am not at all certain if I have even been clear in what I am trying to say.

Such a beautiful post!!!! I agree 100%.

Learning Joseph's story has been marvelous yet not without heart-wrenching moments. Ultimately, my heart & mind both were fed by the Spirit and I thank God for that.

HiJolly

[theoriginalavatar]

Such a beautiful post!!!! I agree 100%.

Learning Joseph's story has been marvelous yet not without heart-wrenching moments. Ultimately, my heart & mind both were fed by the Spirit and I thank God for that.

HiJolly

Thank you, I agree. I guess what it boils down to is that I have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet that was given to me by God through the Holy Spirit, and that cannot be shaken by "historical weaknesses" in Joseph's past. I have found that for some, however, it is discussion is to be avoided. I can certainly respect that, but I would like to understand that way of thinking better.

[HiJolly]

I teach Gospel Doctrine, and I have found that, on occasion, when I bring up a piece of the prophet's history that may be somewhat controversial, I am met with stony-faced looks and silence. I never do this to undermine people's beliefs and faith in the prophet, but I have begun to realize that some view in in precisely this regard.

I have learned to be more guarded in what I say, so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities, but it has made me wonder. I have gone through a LOT of research on my path to the church (perhaps more than I should have needed to), and nothing I have ever read has ever done anything but strengthen my faith in Joseph Smith. And yes, I have read all the lies as well as the hidden truths about him.

I love the brothers and sisters in my class very much, and I with them no discomfort in my class. It has just been eye-opening to me, I suppose, that people were unwilling to discuss what, for me, has always been faith-promoting.

In January of this year I was asked to take on the Gospel Doctrine Adult class (along with my other, more time-consuming calling). I was eager to do so, because of my love for early Church history & Joseph Smith.

It has been a delight, and not without precious moments. Early on I mentioned Joseph's polygamy and had a humble class member come up afterward saying "I didn't know Joseph was a polygamist!". I assured him that Joseph was, adding a few details just for him. I didn't get into polyandry, though. :_

I introduced the class to Royal Skousen's analysis of the BoM manuscripts, to Demotic Egyptian and Kushite writing, to the multiple versions of the First Vision, and much more. And tried to keep it all contextualized withing the lesson plans. Which I'll admit was occasionally a bit of a stretch, yet, I was never called to repentence...

It is also true, though, that many members seem to have an opinion that they have enough truth. They don't want those scary, soul-stretching thoughts that I and you, I'm sure, cherish. Ah well.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

HiJolly

[Dravin]

I never do this to undermine people's beliefs and faith in the prophet, but I have begun to realize that some view in in precisely this regard.

That would be because a large proportion of the people who do bring it up do have that as their goal. Not everyone mind you. Lots of scholarly works do not have that as their goal (for instance Rough Stone Rolling), but by far most of my exposure (and I imagine this typical) is from people who are trying to destroy my faith. Also, if you've done a lot more research than the average person then they don't know if it is true or not what you are bringing up. It could be the truth, you could have been mislead or you could be trying to mislead. Of course you assume they'd trust the Gospel Doctrine teacher, but if he's in the habit of bringing up 'unknown' negative aspects of Joseph's life (even if entirely human and understandable aspects)... So yeah, if somebody just brought up something in Gospel Doctrine I'd probably not be sure how to respond. Both because of the above, and because I wouldn't want to start any controversy myself.

Of course context and presentation counts for a lot. People discuss Joseph Smith's error in the matter of the lost manuscript all the time and don't bat an eye. I imagine if it's mentioned in the manual you can authoritatively point it out without getting the deer in highlights look.

[theoriginalavatar]

In January of this year I was asked to take on the Gospel Doctrine Adult class (along with my other, more time-consuming calling). I was eager to do so, because of my love for early Church history & Joseph Smith.

It has been a delight, and not without precious moments. Early on I mentioned Joseph's polygamy and had a humble class member come up afterward saying "I didn't know Joseph was a polygamist!". I assured him that Joseph was, adding a few details just for him. I didn't get into polyandry, though. :_

I introduced the class to Royal Skousen's analysis of the BoM manuscripts, to Demotic Egyptian and Kushite writing, to the multiple versions of the First Vision, and much more. And tried to keep it all contextualized withing the lesson plans. Which I'll admit was occasionally a bit of a stretch, yet, I was never called to repentence...

It is also true, though, that many members seem to have an opinion that they have enough truth. They don't want those scary, soul-stretching thoughts that I and you, I'm sure, cherish. Ah well.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

HiJolly

HiJolly, I like you already. I am somewhat of a pariah (in my own mind, at least) in my ward. Well, perhaps the church altogether LOL. Almost without exception (there was that one brief time I served in Primary before my mission), since I was converted, I have held a position of one kind or another in Sunday School. Across four wards I have been called to teach the adults. I am not trying to pat myself on the back here, but they must like me.

They have been somewhat saved this year with Doctrine and Covenants. It is a bit more of a challenge for me to stray from what is uniquely LDS doctrine. I still manage to read from the Koran and the Torah when I can work it in though. Next year, with the Old Testament, they have no chance in a "normal" lesson.

I, too, have never been asked to "tone down" my lessons (even when the bishop and members of the High Council attend), and people always thank me and afterwards and ask me question after question.

Crazy.

That little part in the front of the manual where it says that it isn't necessary to use any materials for class that are not in the manual......yeah, right!

In all seriouslness though, I never teach in a disrespectful way or with contention on my breath. I love the church and I love the gospel and I want everyone to open their minds to what there is to be learned. We have the truth (in my never-to-be-humble opinion), and I feel as though there should be nothing to fear.

[HiJolly]

Did you read the theories that he was a high level Mason, and he was assasinated by other masons because the book of mormon is actually masonic teachings that were not to be revealed to non masons?

Hope no one minds my thoughts here....

I had not heard this until your post. I think that arguably, the BoM was seen by many of the day to be anti-Masonic due to many, many discussions of the evils of "secret combinations", in sync with the Captain Morgan disappearance. I believe that there is some truth to the assasination of Joseph being caused in part by other Masons who were extremely upset with what Joseph had done by way of the endowment (not the BoM).

Nick Literski has done a lot of original research on this and while he's not going to finish his book Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration, he *has* delivered the manuscript to Joe Swick, a faithful LDS/Masonic member that is working on getting it published soon. Can't be soon enough!!

I know he was a mason, but to my knowledge he never acheived a high rank (not that I know what their rank structure is), and I do not believe that he took their teachings and morphed it into the Book of Mormon.

He was raised a Master Mason on sight, a high honor and the highest level of blue-lodge freemasonry. As far as I know, he did not join the York or Scottish Rites.

And you're right, he didn't.

HiJolly

[theoriginalavatar]

That would be because a large proportion of the people who do bring it up do have that as their goal. Not everyone mind you. Lots of scholarly works do not have that as their goal (for instance Rough Stone Rolling), but by far most of my exposure (and I imagine this typical) is from people who are trying to destroy my faith. Also, if you've done a lot more research than the average person then they don't know if it is true or not what you are bringing up. It could be the truth, you could have been mislead or you could be trying to mislead. Of course you assume they'd trust the Gospel Doctrine teacher, but if he's in the habit of bringing up 'unknown' negative aspects of Joseph's life (even if entirely human and understandable aspects)... So yeah, if somebody just brought up something in Gospel Doctrine I'd probably not be sure how to respond. Both because of the above, and because I wouldn't want to start any controversy myself.

Of course context and presentation counts for a lot. People discuss Joseph Smith's error in the matter of the lost manuscript all the time and don't bat an eye. I imagine if it's mentioned in the manual you can authoritatively point it out without getting the deer in highlights look.

Your points are very well taken. That is exactly what I was hoping to be answered for me. It makes more sense now, even though I absolutely have no intention of weakening or destroying anyone's faith. I would be a terrible person, indeed, if I surrounded myself within the loving and trusting arms of my brothers and sisters in order to lead them away from the truth.

I would be less than truthful, however, if I said that I haven't been surprised at all by some people's reactions.

I suppose the answer lies in the delivery of the information. When I teach, I never start with, "Hey, I bet you didn't know that Joseph Smith did this..." It is always to illustrate a point and it is always followed up with my testimony of my faith in his prophetic calling.

Thank you again for your comments.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly, I like you already.

You're too kind.

Next year, with the Old Testament, they have no chance in a "normal" lesson.

Next year is my 'inactive' year, due to my 'bigger' calling, so I miss out on all the fun. Gematria, symbolism, kabbalah and so forth will be missing...

We have the truth (in my never-to-be-humble opinion), and I feel as though there should be nothing to fear.

Yep. Keep to the covenants, pressing forward all the while.

HiJolly

[theoriginalavatar]

Gematria, symbolism, kabbalah and so forth

Now that is exciting! *sniff, sniff* I can smell semiotics on your clothes. The truth is so beautiful and fascinating.

It's a good day to be Mormon.

[Dravin]

Your points are very well taken. That is exactly what I was hoping to be answered for me.

I aim to please. I often miss what I'm aiming at, but I aim to please. :)

I would be less than truthful, however, if I said that I haven't been surprised at all by some people's reactions.

I think we all get that. Heck, sometimes you share something that is solid doctrine, straight from the manual and you get weird reactions. More often it is your own take on things that leaves you wondering, "Wait, what was so controversial about that?" People can be funny like that. The move of them you shove in a freezing or stifling (it never seems to be in-between in my experience) Relief Society Room the greater the chances you are going to be left scratching your head at some point.

I suppose the answer lies in the delivery of the information. When I teach, I never start with, "Hey, I bet you didn't know that Joseph Smith did this..." It is always to illustrate a point and it is always followed up with my testimony of my faith in his prophetic calling.

Certainly. Just keep in mind there is most likely going to be someone who no matter the presentation or truth of the matter is not going to want to hear about what you are sharing. Kinda like how the first few times I mentioned that President Monson has a syllabant s (IMHO and a small one) my Mom's eyes kind of went wild and she didn't want to hear it. Some people will not broke the idea that church leaders are imperfect (at least on the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency level). Or if they do, that one can acknowledging them without it falling under murmuring and failing to sustain our leaders.

*shrug*

It takes all kinds, but man wouldn't it be easier if they were all were like you, eh? :)

Edited December 22, 2009 by Dravin

[theoriginalavatar]

It takes all kinds, but man wouldn't it be easier if they were all were like you, eh? :)

I cannot think of anything you could have said that would be further from the truth.

Thank you, though, I appreciate that.

Your aim was on with this one.

[because1]

I agree with the original post. I think, though, one must be careful. My Dad has said to me on occasion, "Remember not everyone is as strong as you are." You are able to put things in the correct context. Others sometimes cannot. Things that some may find controversial have a way of becoming weeds that grow and grow until it strangles the true and good plants. Satan knows this. I am not saying that there is anything to be afraid of when it comes to the church or history of the church. What I am saying that it is often spoken of out of context and in the wrong spirit or without the correct understanding. When this happens, it can be detrimental to those with poor reasoning skills or who are in poor spiritual health. One must be aware that what people are able to spiritually digest are different. Also, some people's spiritual digestion may be in poor health.

In regards to Sunday meetings...The purpose of the Sabbath is that it is the Lord's Day and Sunday meetings are intended so that we can partake of the Sacrament, renew covenants, and be edified an uplifted by one another. I have often found that commentary outside of the scriptures and latter-day prophets really didn't have their place within the context of Sunday meetings where the focus should be on the Savior and helping us to become more like He is. I want the Spirit to teach me...and there is nothing greater than the scriptures that do that. Historical study is helpful and has its place. Greater eternal truths should be paramount and deserving of the greater attention. I just find people teachers get lost in things that may be considered controversial, often use sources that are controversial themselves, and often drown out the true Spirit and purpose of the lesson. I hope those who have the privilege of teaching consider this when they teach.

Just some food for thought.

[Vort]

I do not, however, believe in brushing his mistakes under the proverbial rug.

The problem is that history is a notoriously inexact and faulty area of study. Which of the scandalous stories do you write off as scurrilous falsehoods, which do you dismiss as misunderstandings of greatness by lesser souls, and which do you accept as character flaws?

I have "seen" him at his darkest as well as his most enlightened.

Except, of course, that you haven't. The man died over a hundred years before you were born. You have nothing to go on except historical accounts of highly variable reliability, some penned by friends, some by enemies, some by people who really didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

I am not trying either to discourage you or to criticize you. I am just pointing out that history in general is a minefield, and the history of Joseph Smith is even more volatile and highly fraught with peril for the seeker of historical fact.

There is one, and only one, way to get lasting truth: Through personal revelation from God. If God reveals to you that Joseph Smith was his prophet, that is something you can hang your hat on. Everyone else's whisperings and mutterings about seerstones and Kinderhook plates and Zelph and whatever else you care to pile on really do not amount to anything. Since you cannot know of their validity, it's hard to see what sorts of conclusions you can draw from them, except that history is unknowable* by its very nature.

*For example: I clearly remember as a youth in the 1970s being told that we might be in for a returning ice age, and that human byproduct waste was a major culprit, with clouds of pollution blocking out sunlight and thousands of square miles of city concrete reflecting those precious solar rays back into space. Now, of course, we are told pretty much the opposite. I read a Slate piece within the last year talking about this very thing. Their takeaway? Why, they couldn't find any reputable evidence that any such "ice age scare" ever existed. AND THAT WAS ONLY THIRTY YEARS AGO! You think things from 150-200 years ago will be any less liable to distortion?

Joseph Smith was an imperfect, capable-of-error, all-too-human, prophet of God.

I have no doubt this is true; Joseph himself was the first to admit his lack of perfection. But how could you possibly conclude this based on the unreliable histories given? Fawn Brodie's laughable effort is STILL quoted as "authoritative".

A person who was not perfect...is someone in whom I can trust

I confess, I don't understand this even a little. "I can trust you, because you are imperfect." Nope, doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, that's my take.

[Vanhin]

The Joseph Smith papers are adding a wealth of information, including things we did not know before about his life. Some of us may not personally have the capacity to sift through all of that to try to determine the truth about something, but there are plenty of historians within the Church and otherwise, who specialize in that sort of thing.

Has any of you seen the Joseph Smith Papers series on the BYU Channel lately? That is some interesting and quite exciting stuff.

Regards,

Vanhin

[cookslc]

Did you read the theories that he was a high level Mason, and he was assasinated by other masons because the book of mormon is actually masonic teachings that were not to be revealed to non masons?

I know he was a mason, but to my knowledge he never acheived a high rank (not that I know what their rank structure is), and I do not believe that he took their teachings and morphed it into the Book of Mormon.

1. Joseph Smith was a Master Mason. He was not a "high level Mason." Indeed, when the Anson Call-Rocky Mountain prophecy is indicated to have occurred, we find that Joseph was not entitled to participate in all of a Masonic ceremony:

"On the 14th of July, 1813, with quite a number of his brethren, he crossed the Mississippi river to the town of Montrose, to be present at the installment of the Masonic Lodge of the "Rising Sun." A block schoolhouse had been prepared with shade in front, under which was a barrel of ice water. Judge George [James] Adams was the highest masonic authority in the state of Illinois, and had been sent there to organize this lodge. He, Hyrum Smith, and J. C. Bennett, being high Masons, went into the house to perform some ceremonies which the others were not entitled to witness. These, including Joseph Smith, remained under the bowery..."

2. The claim is not usually that he put Masonic teachings in the BoM, but in the LDS endowment. For a refutation of this, I would refer you to both prior comments on the subject and the new DVD by Covenant Communications, "Exploring the Relationship Between Mormons and Masons."

Edited December 23, 2009 by cookslc

[MarginOfError]

Smith was a fantastically flawed man. Arrogant, brash, aggressive, inflexible. Yet, when I read the revelations he recorded, I can't help but feel that they are indeed the word of God. As flawed as Smith was, I am sure of one thing--he was honestly and desperately trying to do his best. That's really all that matters isn't it?

[Misshalfway]

I really appreciate that Moe. And I think I appreciate what the OP is saying too and Vort as well.

Every child of God is complex and flawed and able to do great things as a tool of God too. God knows who he can trust. He does the picking and luckily he tells/shows/gives our hearts enough truth so that we can follow.

As I have battled to come to terms with this church and the imperfections of the restoration process, I find myself in scary territory when it comes to evalutating Joseph Smith's flaws. It feels like I tread onto sacred if not forbidden ground. No one, imho, deserves this kind of scutany that Joseph is consistently subjected to. And I feel sometimes as I pray that perhaps the real answers and the "truth" about his mistakes just aren't my business.

I was watching a little history channel on Mary Magdelene the other night. It was amazing how her "reputation" has evolved over time with even less information than we have about JSmith. We humans are funny creatures. Why is it that we so easily miss the forest for the trees?

I can't know the true history of JSmith. No one can. It's the only thing that I can agree with Fawn Brodie about. And it constantly overwhelms me at how we need to dissect every particle of him as if that could make or break a testimony about this work. I suppose it could, but then I question the foundations of the testimony.

I am glad the OP has come to some form of peace on the subject. I have too. In the end, its about what Joseph produced and published that makes more difference in my life than all details of what choice he made on May 2 at 2 pm. For me, the only thing that matters is whether or not God used him for the purposes he claimed. The rest I hand to God.

[Moksha]

When I hear the human aspect (actually there is only the human aspect to talk about) being discussed, it is usually in regards to polygamy.

[theoriginalavatar]

I agree with the original post. I think, though, one must be careful. My Dad has said to me on occasion, "Remember not everyone is as strong as you are." You are able to put things in the correct context. Others sometimes cannot. Things that some may find controversial have a way of becoming weeds that grow and grow until it strangles the true and good plants. Satan knows this. I am not saying that there is anything to be afraid of when it comes to the church or history of the church. What I am saying that it is often spoken of out of context and in the wrong spirit or without the correct understanding. When this happens, it can be detrimental to those with poor reasoning skills or who are in poor spiritual health. One must be aware that what people are able to spiritually digest are different. Also, some people's spiritual digestion may be in poor health.

In regards to Sunday meetings...The purpose of the Sabbath is that it is the Lord's Day and Sunday meetings are intended so that we can partake of the Sacrament, renew covenants, and be edified an uplifted by one another. I have often found that commentary outside of the scriptures and latter-day prophets really didn't have their place within the context of Sunday meetings where the focus should be on the Savior and helping us to become more like He is. I want the Spirit to teach me...and there is nothing greater than the scriptures that do that. Historical study is helpful and has its place. Greater eternal truths should be paramount and deserving of the greater attention. I just find people teachers get lost in things that may be considered controversial, often use sources that are controversial themselves, and often drown out the true Spirit and purpose of the lesson. I hope those who have the privilege of teaching consider this when they teach.

Just some food for thought.

I agree and disagree with you. If a person is hanging by such a weak thread to the Gospel, the teachings I suggest may be the catalyst that pushes them over the edge, but it seems that it would happen eventually on its own. Nothing I teach is not truthful or accurate.

I do appreciate your comments, however. Thank you for providing additional perspective.

[Hemidakota]

A Blessed Morning to Each of You,

I have been pondering a great deal lately about Joseph Smith and what he means to me on a personal spiritual level. Before I say what I am about to say, I want to be very clear that these sentiments are a reflection of my personal feelings, and I completely understand if they do not make sense for (or to) everyone else. We each have our own path to travel, even within the church.

Joseph Smith. So many people within the church place the prophet on a greatly elevated pedestal. They do this for good reason. Joseph Smith was a brilliant man and one would be hard pressed to find a person who has done more to care for and promote the salvation of man. I agree with these sentiments. I do not, however, believe in brushing his mistakes under the proverbial rug.

I am a convert as well as an academic, and as such I have always taken every matter of spirituality (in all areas of doctrine, but LDS dogma in particular) and placed it inexorably under the microscope of sceptical inquiry. Joseph Smith was a special project for me. I didn't dig and stare into the dark abyss in order to disprove him, but rather to create in my own mind a place whereby I could place him in faith. I think I have examined ad infinitum every aspect of his fallibility. I have "seen" him at his darkest as well as his most enlightened. I have poured over his so-called "failed prophesies" and have rejoiced with him in the eternal truths he revealed. In the end, I have come to a very valuable and deeply spiritual revelation (which may, perhaps, only ring with profound meaning to me and may be commonly held knowledge by others): Joseph Smith was an imperfect, capable-of-error, all-too-human, prophet of God.

Some choose to place him upon a pedestal that few could ever hope to see, let alone rest upon. I cannot and will not do this. To focus on Joseph Smith's humanity (his fallibility) would be, for some, a faith-destroying activity. For me, it has had exactly the opposite effect. The very fact that Joseph Smith made mistakes, got angry on occasion, displayed pride, etc. has served to strengthen my testimony in him as a prophet of God. A person who was not perfect (and indeed only the Savior was ever capable of perfection) is someone in whom I can trust and, more importantly, relate. Perfection remains ever a goal for me (and all of us, I'm sure) but ever in the distance as well. Joseph Smith was a prophet and a man. The prophet I can respect and follow. The man I can understand and relate to.

Does anyone else feel this way? I am not at all certain if I have even been clear in what I am trying to say.

Joseph Smith, as a brother and a friend, had imperfection and admitted it in his own talks and journals. It is others though petting jealousy, would seek to find fault in this brother. However, there is only two who done more for humanity than other person since Adam - our Elder Brother Jesus the Christ, and Joseph Smith. I may fail add another whom I have deep respect and love for, is Michael [Adam] but again, it is the only time when the fullness of all authoritative keys are presented onto a restoration Prophet by everyone since Adam.