Thoughts on Joseph Smith's imperfections

[theoriginalavatar]

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?

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.

Touche my friend.

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.

This, of course, is true. While one can never know the truth of all things when gazing into the twisted maze of history (without the aid of the Holy Spirit, of course), one can learn the variance in outright lies and whisperings of fact. We all see through the rose-colored glasses of our own understanding and prejudices.

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.

You are correct. Much caution is called for when regarding historical renderings.

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".

Fawn's work is interesting, but I agree with you that she was very "stretchy" in her interpretations and conclusions. She, too, wore her pair of rose-colored glasses.

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.

I am confused by your confusion LOL. You trust the prophet of God on earth today and yet you know he is, by nature, imperfect. We trust that he is in communion with God on our behalf. We trust that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he is able to give us direction. And yet, we know that he is human and, as such, is capable of error. Not error in any way that matters for our salvation, bur error nonetheless. This is no different with Joseph Smith. He spoke the words and mind of God, and yet he was a man.

Anyway, that's my take.

How dare you share "your take" when I have asked you to. Only joking. I appreciate that very much.

[theoriginalavatar]

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?

I could not agree with you more, and I think you have gotten my point exactly. If I have led anyone to believe, through my comments, that I doubt the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, I apologize. I know he was a prophet. I also know that he was an imperfect man. This latter fact in no way changes my opinion of him on the former.

[Vort]

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.

I am confused by your confusion LOL. You trust the prophet of God on earth today and yet you know he is, by nature, imperfect.

I trust him despite his imperfections, not because of them. I don't understand how a man being imperfect makes him trustworthy. Jesus Christ was not imperfect; does that mean he should not be trusted?

[Relentless]

Vort, are you suggesting that Avatar can't trust Jesus because he lacked imperfections?

[theoriginalavatar]

I trust him despite his imperfections, not because of them. I don't understand how a man being imperfect makes him trustworthy. Jesus Christ was not imperfect; does that mean he should not be trusted?

So you are asking me to apologize because I am weird in the manner of my thinking? Sheesh!

Only joking. I can see what you are saying, and I agree. I think I wasn't very clear in the way my words fell out onto the screen. This is not at all uncommon for me. I try to wrap my mind around the thoughts making their way through my mind, but I do not always enjoy success in the endeavor.

Your point is well-taken, and I concede.

[Vort]

Smith was a fantastically flawed man. Arrogant, brash, aggressive, inflexible.

I could not agree with you more, and I think you have gotten my point exactly.

Joseph Smith was famously friendly and courteous, even to enemies. Some may call him arrogant, brash, aggressive, and inflexible. They can call him a potted plant, if they want. I do not believe history bears out such a view, nor do I believe that anyone 160+ years after the fact can possibly give an accurate gauge of the man. Contemporary historical records, at least the believable ones, do not bear out any such description of Joseph Smith.

I can appreciate an effort to maintain an unbiased viewpoint, but I have little patience with stretching history and known facts around in an effort to look broadminded. Joseph Smith was not "fantastically flawed", unless you want to apply that description to every other man and woman who has ever lived on the earth (besides Christ).

[Vort]

So you are asking me to apologize because I am weird in the manner of my thinking? Sheesh!

Only joking...Your point is well-taken, and I concede.

Not looking for apologies or concessions. Just chatting.

[theoriginalavatar]

I can appreciate an effort to maintain an unbiased viewpoint, but I have little patience with stretching history and known facts around in an effort to look broadminded. Joseph Smith was not "fantastically flawed", unless you want to apply that description to every other man and woman who has ever lived on the earth (besides Christ).

In fact, I do. As you pointed out, there was only one who can bear the title of perfect, and that is our Savior.

I certainly know that I am "fantastically flawed," and this knowledge gives me a point from which to start and grow. Once I am aware of who I am and my limitations, I can then begin to work toward the daunting task of become perfect even as my father in heaven is perfect.

I think Joseph Smith understood this very well (and admitted it on numerous occasions, as has also been pointed out), and this creates no small amount of respect for him in my mind.

[theoriginalavatar]

Not looking for apologies or concessions. Just chatting.

I was Catholic for a VERY long time....apologizing and guilt are in my nature. I enjoy your "chatting." You are helping me to see things in a different light, which is something I enjoy and encourage! Thank you.

[Moksha]

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.

This bears repeating. The other option would be to offer a class called Gospel Eccentricities.

:)

[theoriginalavatar]

This bears repeating. The other option would be to offer a class called Gospel Eccentricities.

:)

They have a Gospel Essentials class and a regular Gospel Doctrine class. Perhaps they should have a Gospel Doctrine University of Advanced Studies as well on Sundays.

[cookslc]

...

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

In raising a Mason at sight, it is usually meant that no degree ritual is performed. There is no evidence this was the case with Joseph. It would be more correct to say that any time between degrees was waived. This is not unusual in Masonry.

[ehkape]

Contemporary historical records, at least the believable ones, do not bear out any such description of Joseph Smith.

Which accounts do you consider to be the "believable ones"?

[HiJolly]

In raising a Mason at sight, it is usually meant that no degree ritual is performed. There is no evidence this was the case with Joseph. It would be more correct to say that any time between degrees was waived. This is not unusual in Masonry.

There is evidence, but you must be a Mason and in Illinois to view the records. Nick Literski recorded the information and it will be in the forthcoming book "Method Infinite...".

HiJolly

[cookslc]

There is evidence, but you must be a Mason and in Illinois to view the records. Nick Literski recorded the information and it will be in the forthcoming book "Method Infinite...".

HiJolly

I'm aware of Br. Literski's work, turned over to Br. Swick. I am unaware of a limitation to Masons using the GLIll records, though I am a Mason. In any case, the record indicates that Joseph was made an Entered Apprentice on one day and a Master Mason the next, demonstrating he was not made a Mason at sight.

Edited December 25, 2009 by cookslc

[Moksha]

I was thinking of this thread and noting how marvelous it is to be able to reflect on on the less than perfect qualities and actions of historic religious figures. I have been to boards where that simply is not done.

Those boards not allowing an openness of thought and discussion are of the apologetic sort, which generally means they deny all and admit nothing. Even the glaringly obvious must be met with stark denial. At those boards any admission of fault is seen as a sign of weakness, rather than as a sign of true humanity.

There is something very compelling about the person of Joseph Smith. I wish I had the power to travel back in time and meet him. I would have enjoyed his sermons and sitting around the cracker barrel in the red brick store jawing with him. We could even have hoisted a postum or two and had a hearty laugh.

Even if some parts of Joseph's private side did not jive with the public side we have created, it does not detract from the good. All of us are made up of complex segments than are best not viewed out of context when seeing the whole of us. Same with Joseph Smith.

:)

[OmahaLDS]

I suspect that Joseph Smith was...

...a jerk

...arrogant

...mean to his wife

...mean to his kids

...mean to neighbors

...mean to his mother

...mean to the elderly

...etc...

Joseph was human, and divine inspiration notwithstanding, all humans act this way at some point or another. I think in many cases we put the Prophet (any of them) on a pedestal, and in doing so we elevate them above humanness. This only sets faith in their "other"ness up for a fall.

Prophets, Apostles, Bishops, etc... are all human, and therefore imperfect. Forgetting this, ignoring it, or worse hiding it, is actually dangerous.

Martin Luther was a vicious, anti-Semitic, lunatic at times. It does not mean he was not inspired as well.

[ozzy]

I think I would like to expand the hypothesis of this thread, that being the Joseph Smith was imperfect. I would like to expand that statement to include every prophet before and since. I would like to expand it to include the missionaries, the saints, and myself (hard to believe I know. :) ).

I know that he wasn't perfect. That knowledge promotes further faith in God for me. Knowing that none of these are perfect helps us have a greater personal need to ask God for further confirmation of their words. I think that this is the very purpose for which God uses imperfect people.

Another reason is for their growth.

[OmahaLDS]

I think I would like to expand the hypothesis of this thread, that being the Joseph Smith was imperfect. I would like to expand that statement to include every prophet before and since. I would like to expand it to include the missionaries, the saints, and myself (hard to believe I know. :) ).

I think it is something we ignore too much. How often do you hear anti-Mormons talk about how horrible Joseph was? My response is usually, "So....?" I do not think Joseph was guilty of all he was accused, but I suspect he was an arrogant jerk sometimes.

[ozzy]

By chance do the words '116 pages' provide an accurate example as to whether or not he was perfect?

And just to refrain from tooting my own horn, I accidentally slept through church today. As in I stayed in bed. :)

The reason I bring that up is that whenever I hear about the people you (Omaha) mentioned, I just wish they would step back and examine how far from perfection they fall before they accuse the prophets. And I am separating 'accuse' from 'recognize.'

[Moksha]

I accidentally slept through church today. As in I stayed in bed. :)

Had you not mentioned staying in bed, we would have just assumed you were a High Priest doing what High Priests do.

[ozzy]

Yeah... maybe I should have left it that way.

[nprice]

A good talk about this subject was given at the last general conference in October 2009 by Elder Tad Collister. Check it out at Joseph Smith?Prophet of the Restoration

[because1]

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.

This is just to cause you to think in another perspective....not to criticize....

I have been of the opinion and am in the same opinion still that when someone is on the edge of a cliff that I don't push them off...even though they may eventually fall on their own. I think it would be much more advantageous to get them as far from the cliff as possible and get them to a firm foundation.

I also wouldn't under-estimate the cunningness of the adversary in such matters for the very strong. I have seen far too many "strong" members get tied up with and seek for "more interesting and controversial aspects" of the gospel/church history...much to their demise. I think it a critical error many of us make when we seek after the much "less weightier" things and ignore the "much weightier" things of far greater import. That has been my observation.

[because1]

They have a Gospel Essentials class and a regular Gospel Doctrine class. Perhaps they should have a Gospel Doctrine University of Advanced Studies as well on Sundays.

I find it interesting that we are going to be having lessons in Priesthood and Relief Society out of the Gospel Essentials manual this coming year. Perhaps it is because the gospel principles are essential and of the utmost import...and in actuality is the Gospel Doctrine University of Advanced Studies. It is really truly all that is important for our salvation and should be the topic of study and personal examination. I think we get so tied up on examining people and prophets for imperfections to justify the imperfections we, ourselves, have. I have found that when we come to understand the atonement through the basic principles of the gospel and living them that we don't have to seek for imperfections but rather live "in and through Christ" and his atonement.

I guess I get so tired of controversial, inappropriately sourced material at church and discussions that get so far off topic because the teacher finds it so interesting that the true spirit of teaching by the Spirit is lost. I find, in such cases, there is little advancement in the cause of the power of Christ to change our hearts. In my opinion, advanced classes are classes that teach by the simple pure truth of the Spirit of things of great worth to our salvation and love of God. It reminds me of the scripture in 1 Nephi 17 to "look" and be healed but "...because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished."

Just my thoughts.