Thoughts on Joseph Smith's imperfections

[Still_Small_Voice]

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.

I completely agree with this statement.

[theoriginalavatar]

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.

I find it interesting that there are so many who feel that I am anti-Joseph Smith. Perhaps I am only inferring people's feelings based on comments made, but this is the way it seems to me. Let me be very clear (again) that I am in NO WAY anti-Joseph Smith. I love, respect, admire, and study the man every day. I believe he was and is a prophet of God, and that has only been STRENGTHENED by the fact that he was a man just as I am.

(I do not mean to imply that you are one who thinks this, by the way, your comment just brought it to mind. Thank you for your words!)

[theoriginalavatar]

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.

I appreciate your comments, but I feel that too many have completely missed the purpose and meaning behind my words.

This is, no doubt, as a direct result of the ineffectuality of my manner of speaking and in no way reflects people's perceptions.

[OmahaLDS]

I find it interesting that there are so many who feel that I am anti-Joseph Smith. Perhaps I am only inferring people's feelings based on comments made, but this is the way it seems to me. Let me be very clear (again) that I am in NO WAY anti-Joseph Smith. I love, respect, admire, and study the man every day. I believe he was and is a prophet of God, and that has only been STRENGTHENED by the fact that he was a man just as I am.

(I do not mean to imply that you are one who thinks this, by the way, your comment just brought it to mind. Thank you for your words!)

I never said you or anyone else was anti-Joseph Smith?

[theoriginalavatar]

I never said you or anyone else was anti-Joseph Smith?

I know you didn't, which is why I said, "I do not mean to imply that you are one who thinks this, by the way, your comment just brought it to mind."

Your words simply brought to mind the "flavor" of people's comments that I had picked up from the thread. It was just me being overly sensitive, and I apologize.

I hope your day is going very well so far!

[Tazzerina]

To the OP, I just wanted to thank you for this thread. As someone getting closer to baptism and also someone who might have done altogether too much research (like you, I gotta have that academic side too), I really appreciate what you're saying and agree completely. My dad, who's not a member and keeps trying to convince me not to join, once asked me, "What if you knew Joseph Smith was at one point a liar and a cheat? Would that make you change your mind?" And, regardless of whether or not that's actually true, I found myself saying "No" for the same reasons you mentioned. Any places for improvement make him more relatable and human, which only strengthens my testimony of his as a prophet. Anyway, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your comments and everyone else's as I too have trouble finding people who are either willing to discuss things like this or who are even aware of them. This forum is so refreshing :)

[zeezrom]

What if I cannot get myself to believe in polygamy? What if I believe it was not sanctioned by God? How do I bridge the gap from my primary day's idealistic view of Joseph Smith to what I'm left with after reading that he married some women that had husbands and some even while their husbands were on missions? (and that he consummated these marriages). I'm at a complete loss here. I'm not asking in a negative way - please know I'm asking so I can know the truth, that is all.

[HiJolly]

What if I cannot get myself to believe in polygamy?

In today's church, it will not be a major factor, unless you are interested in and do research into the early to mid history (say, 1830 - 1925) of the Church. And believe it has relevance to today.

What if I believe it was not sanctioned by God?

The question is, what do you think that *MEANS* in today's Church, since once again it is not sanctioned by God?

If you think it compromises the foundational beliefs and activities of the Church from then to now, then you've got a problem. I say that only in respect to how you feel about it, not how I feel about it, I must add.

How do I bridge the gap from my primary day's idealistic view of Joseph Smith to what I'm left with after reading that he married some women that had husbands and some even while their husbands were on missions? (and that he consummated these marriages).

That is a real and serious thing, dealing with gap between the 'sanitized' view of Joseph and the evidence of what really happened. Except, we really don't know what actually happened.

While I realize there is evidence that Joseph like did consummate some few (what, 2 or 3?) of these sealings, I don't think we can in complete confidence say that he factually did. Affidavits notwithstanding. Look at the Lyon case, for example. Tons of evidence, but DNA proves it's all incorrect. Hmmm.

What is a prophet? Have you noticed the behavior of OT prophets?

Joseph actually stacks up pretty nicely, when you compare, IMO. And I leave out the NT simply because THE prophet there is Jesus, and I don't think anyone should be compared to that standard.

I'm at a complete loss here. I'm not asking in a negative way - please know I'm asking so I can know the truth, that is all.

Depending on what historians say RE the history of the Church is inherently problematic. And in different ways, depending on who you are reading.

The more secular the author, the deeper the problems are if you are a faithful reader; the more faithful the author, the deeper the problems are if you are a secular reader.

Historians in general don't know what REALLY happened, they only find evidence in what they dig up in journals, newspapers, court records and so forth. And the more secular they are, the more strict they are in following Occam's razor.

Parsimony, and probability, these 'tools' of a historian, have direct and humongous impact on a historian's interpretation of spiritual events and/or motivations in historical studies. If the viewpoint is secular, then visions, revelations, 'promptings', miracles, answers to prayers, all of these are either (1) imagined or (2) A product of the psychological, subconscious mind.

If the viewpoint is religious and/or spiritual, then the opinions and conclusions of the historians must be 'filtered' to fit this world view. And this is problematic for the reader, in that we typically do not have access to the records and original sources that the historians have access to.

So, we are tempted to TRUST the historian, since we can't get to some sources. OTOH, there are many sources we CAN access. In these cases, we can check their usage and conclusions based on these sources, and build an opinion of how accurately the author in question matches our own worldview, and then apply that to more of their works.

Contrast, for example, Richard L. Bushman and Todd Compton. They both state up front that they are LDS and are just reporting the facts.

Bushman chooses to leave out "questionable" information, which is one possible problem, while Compton keeps making editorial comments like this:

p.12 of In Sacred Loneliness

"For Mormon feminists unsympathetic to patriarchal polygamy, this will be one of the most troubling aspects of Mormon polygamy: women co-opting other, younger females into the order."

I think that this is a 'loaded' statement. Words like "feminists" and "troubling" and "co-opting" are dependent on so much personal understanding (and may I say, baggage, even for me) that this sentence can be interpreted in widely varying ways, pro or con. I think it can be looked at as a positive, not a troubling, situation. Then again, I'm a fan of what I consider 'true' feminism, not bigoted feminism. :-)

When I read George D. Smith, the problems between is assumptions and my viewpoint get so disparate that the book is just unreadable; If I read Richard S. Van Wagoner it's not quite so bad but still I have to throw out a lot of his suppositions and assumptions, not to mention even more of his conclusions.

If you don't look at their sources, you won't know WHAT to think.

"A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking"

-- Arthur Bloch

Let's talk some more!

HiJolly

Edited January 1, 2010 by HiJolly
typos and clarification

[Saguaro]

What if I cannot get myself to believe in polygamy? What if I believe it was not sanctioned by God? How do I bridge the gap from my primary day's idealistic view of Joseph Smith to what I'm left with after reading that he married some women that had husbands and some even while their husbands were on missions? (and that he consummated these marriages). I'm at a complete loss here. I'm not asking in a negative way - please know I'm asking so I can know the truth, that is all.

These are very difficult questions, and I sympathize with you. My wife could have written the exact same thing. When she found out Joseph practiced polygamy, and the way in which he practiced it, she was very upset and her testimony took a big hit (it's not like we talk bout these things in Primary/YM/YW/Sunday School). I don't have a good answer for you. Joseph was a great but imperfect man. In order to retain a belief in his role as a prophet you may just have to consider polygamy one of his "imperfections" and focus on the good things that you see in him and his teachings. The way I look at it is, am I willing to reject the good things about him because of the few things I don't like? Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[theoriginalavatar]

These are very difficult questions, and I sympathize with you. My wife could have written the exact same thing. When she found out Joseph practiced polygamy, and the way in which he practiced it, she was very upset and her testimony took a big hit (it's not like we talk bout these things in Primary/YM/YW/Sunday School). I don't have a good answer for you. Joseph was a great but imperfect man. In order to retain a belief in his role as a prophet you may just have to consider polygamy one of his "imperfections" and focus on the good things that you see in him and his teachings. The way I look at it is, am I willing to reject the good things about him because of the few things I don't like? Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Thank you. I think you have done well to illustrate my point. I believe Joseph Smith is and was a prophet of God. I also believe he made mistakes and had flaws, just like everyone else does.

HiJolly mentioned that other prophets (OT comes to mind) had their fair share of "questionable" actions. I still believe they did a great work and were prophets of God. With regard to the polygamy issue, I do not see how this is any different than anything else that a prophet has done that may be hard to swallow, so to speak.

Earnest and sincere prayer are the only way to go. If I had relied completely on my (admittedly limited) intellect, I probably would never have joined this church (or any other for that matter). God spoke to me through the Holy Spirit and told me that Joseph Smith was a prophet. End of story (for me).

(Just piggybacking on what you said, Saguaro, not directing my comments at you. :) )

[theoriginalavatar]

In today's church, it will not be a major factor, unless you are interested in and do research into the early to mid history (say, 1830 - 1925) of the Church. And believe it has relevance to today.

The question is....

That was a long and thoughtful response. I appreciate your words very much.

[ozzy]

I just wanna throw this out there. I find it interesting that polygamy is such a huge deal. It especially surprises me that it is such a big thing in all of christianity. I'm not saying I am for it, cause I am not. God has made it clear that it is not to be practiced today, and I have a hard enough time finding the first one so I don't even think about what I would have to do to find the others. Anyway, the reason I find it so interesting is because the 12 tribes of Israel are such a huge deal and they were conceived under righteous polygamy. So I ask, so what if Joseph or Brigham practiced? At the time it was required by God for whatever reason, and now its banned. We've seen the pattern before, so why is it such a problem to see it again?

[HiJolly]

I just wanna throw this out there. I find it interesting that polygamy is such a huge deal. It especially surprises me that it is such a big thing in all of christianity. I'm not saying I am for it, cause I am not. God has made it clear that it is not to be practiced today, and I have a hard enough time finding the first one so I don't even think about what I would have to do to find the others. Anyway, the reason I find it so interesting is because the 12 tribes of Israel are such a huge deal and they were conceived under righteous polygamy. So I ask, so what if Joseph or Brigham practiced? At the time it was required by God for whatever reason, and now its banned. We've seen the pattern before, so why is it such a problem to see it again?

I think it's two things. First, our culture (Western European) is opposed to it, whereas the middle eastern culture (biblical, if you will) is accepting of it; Second, Joseph's efforts appear to be deceptive, or maybe just secretive, depending on interpretation.

And most people writing about it do so because they're upset, and so most of what people see is coming from a negative viewpoint.

HiJolly

[ozzy]

I think it's two things. First, our culture (Western European) is opposed to it, whereas the middle eastern culture (biblical, if you will) is accepting of it; Second, Joseph's efforts appear to be deceptive, or maybe just secretive, depending on interpretation.

And most people writing about it do so because they're upset, and so most of what people see is coming from a negative viewpoint.

HiJolly

Okay, yeah I think I can see that. I suppose the only thing I could then point out is that any such experience on Josephs part would be considered sacred even as many spiritual experiences and the temple are considered sacred. So of course he wouldn't make a point of making it known. Sadly though I doubt most of Christianity would go for that one. Like you said, our culture prevents it.

[Moksha]

What if I cannot get myself to believe in polygamy? What if I believe it was not sanctioned by God? How do I bridge the gap from my primary day's idealistic view of Joseph Smith to what I'm left with after reading that he married some women that had husbands and some even while their husbands were on missions? (and that he consummated these marriages). I'm at a complete loss here. I'm not asking in a negative way - please know I'm asking so I can know the truth, that is all.

My answer would be to forgive human frailties. We all have sexual urges and they are expressed in different ways. Errors will always be made. The good thing is that we can learn from them and the forgiving of such errors is an essential part of the pathway of Jesus.

[Moksha]

Joseph was a great but imperfect man. In order to retain a belief in his role as a prophet you may just have to consider polygamy one of his "imperfections" and focus on the good things that you see in him and his teachings. The way I look at it is, am I willing to reject the good things about him because of the few things I don't like? Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Perhaps by simply viewing polygamy as a fly in the ointment, you can look to the positive features.

[Eclorian]

I have recently started going back to church after about a 12 year sabbatical, I stopped attending church at about age 16. Since I have returned I have learned A LOT of things I did not know about Joseph Smith's history. This is one of the things I have reflected on a great deal, not knowing the full story. I did read in one account, that Joseph Smith was bound to a lot of women whose husbands were not worthy to enter the temple, and there is no evidence that any of these unions was ever consummated.

So I was pondering over this one day, and just trying to figure out in my mind, exactly why our Heavenly Father would command something that is so obviously against the cultural mindset. It was very strange how it came to me, it was just me pondering, and then BAM, it hit me. I've read multiple scriptures from time to time about building God's kingdom.

If you think about the impact plural marriages had on this church, and I mean the positive impact, doesn't it just make sense that the more offspring that are produced, the more likely those children will grow up to be faithful members of the church. We have no evidence that Joseph Smith ever consummated any of his temple sealings, but we know that Brigham Young and perhaps any other members who actually practiced plural marriage would have had lots of children.

So if a person were to look at it from this viewpoint, if God did command plural marriage to Joseph Smith, and he was so aghast at the idea, (which we know from multiple accounts that he frowned on it a great deal), perhaps Joseph Smith felt that sealing himself to these women was fulfilling his responsibility, and wouldn't it be safe to say that God knew this would happen and that his successors would practice it with more vigor, thus building his church up with greater numbers?

This is just my thought on the subject, and I do believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Feel free to add onto or comment!:)