The Secret to Mormonism's Success

[smac97]

Interesting:

I was watching Richard Bushman on DVD speak at some conference or other, the DVD â?? bought at alas, a remaindered discount at Seagull â?? doesnâ??t say where the conference was, or maybe I missed that information. In any event, Bushman is a valuable resource to learning about Mormon history.

He reminds us that history demands a catholic interpretation. When learning about Joseph Smith, for example, itâ??s just as important to learn what his critics thought of him as it is to learn what his most devoted adherents thought. And, itâ??s important to see all sides of an historical figure â?? the good and the bad.

Unfortunately, too often in politics and religion, many of us are simply unable to grasp that there is an opposing viewpoint worth respecting or flaws in our religious and political heroes. We know these negatives must exist; we live our own lives, with our personal doubts, failures and shortcomings. But the pedestal fantasy still grasps us.

I like this quote from Bushmanâ??s biography of Joseph Smith, â??Rough Stone Rollingâ?: â??Joseph Smith did not offer himself as an examplar of virtue. He told his followers not to expect perfection. Smith called himself a rough stone, thinking of his own impetuosity and lack of polish.â?

I would like Latter-day Saints to keep this sort of thing in mind. We cannot look at the Church as being perfected and without flaw.

When we think the Church is without flaw or is perfect, we set ourselves up for disappointment and discouragement. We risk alienating ourselves from the Church because the Church turns out to need work and effort.

When we think the Church is without flaw or is perfect, we become lazy and less willing to work to maintain and improve the Church. The Church needs constant attention and effort. Here's an analogy:

Imagine that a young man comes in to a large sum of money. He immediately goes out and buys a new car. The young man naively thinks that a new car never has problems, so he fails to do proper maintenance on it (tune-ups, oil changes, checking the tire pressure, etc.). He also ignores the dings and scratches the car picks up as a result of his use of it. Inevitably, over the following months, the car's performance and appearance deteriorates. Then the young man, in a moment, despairs at how dilapidated his car has become. Infuriated at the car's manufacturer, the car dealership where he bought it, the salesman who sold it to him, and even the car itself, the young man abandons the car and thereafter denounces the brand as being the worst car he ever owned. "I can't believe I was duped into buying that piece of junk!" he fumes to a friend.

Such a young man would be properly characterized as a fool.

When we think the Church is without flaw or is perfect, we put ourselves on a pathway to pride and arrogance. Not only are these characteristics repellant to others, but they aren't justified.

Back to the article:

A secular reason for Mormonismâ??s success, or staying power, is its lack of perfection. In â??Rough Stone Rolling,â? all the contradictions and setbacks that accompany a full life are listed: dabblings in money-digging as a youth; vigilante activities; distinct accounts of LDS revelations; political demagoguery; failed financial ventures; and the secrecy of plural marriage.

Moral of the story: Learning, and correcting, builds lasting endurance.

I think this is a great point. Members should not be discouraged when we encounter flaws in the Church. We shouldn't let these things shake us. We shouldn't stand on the sidelines and harp on the flaws, expecting someone else to do the work necessary to fix them. We should jump in and, through learning and correction, fix the flaws and help the Church endure, improve and grow.

There are many reasons Smithâ??s church has endured beyond the â??Godâ??s work will never stopâ? rhetoric we hear each Sunday. Bushman cites at least three in â??Rough Stone Rollingâ?:

â?¢ One is that the young LDS prophet did not make himself the center of early missionary experts. Since Mormonism was not a cult of personality, it was able to pick itself up and thrive after the shock of Smithâ??s Carthage martyrdom.

â?¢ Also, doctrines such as latter-day revelation, the gathering of Israel and a priesthood authority â?? all progressive in that era â?? was a chief appeal of Mormonism to its early converts.

â?¢ Another doctrine Bushman cites as having great missionary appeal was the temple endowments, which he opines offered converts the feeling of a â??direct access to God.â?

As to the first bullet point, I think our critics like to paid Mormonism as a "personality cult" of Joseph Smith. I just don't see that. We venerate and respect him, but we also revere our current prophet. We listen to the words of past prophets (with, I think, an added emphasis on Joseph since he was the founding prophet of this dispensation and the author of so much scripture). But the current prophet is running the show. When he passes on, his successor will run the show. We've had 150+ years of experiencing transitions from leader to leader, so the "personality cult" accusation doesn't hold much water.

Truth is, any review of Mormonismâ??s early history is replete with as many failures as successes. Large swaths of the early church members, including most of the original Twelve Apostles, left the church. Many people who left the early church were justified in their anger that drove them from Mormonism. We shouldnâ??t try to deny that.

I'll quibble here. "Many people who left eh early church were justified in their anger that drove them from Mormonism." I'm not sure I agree with that. Under what standard is such justification pronounced?

I hope to find this DVD. I'd like to watch it.

-Smac

[Scottie]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws. Many of them just simply don't want to know.

As to the first bullet point, I think our critics like to paid Mormonism as a "personality cult" of Joseph Smith. I just don't see that. We venerate and respect him, but we also revere our current prophet. We listen to the words of past prophets (with, I think, an added emphasis on Joseph since he was the founding prophet of this dispensation and the author of so much scripture). But the current prophet is running the show. When he passes on, his successor will run the show. We've had 150+ years of experiencing transitions from leader to leader, so the "personality cult" accusation doesn't hold much water.

I disagree. When mentioning prophets, I rarely, if ever, hear "I am greatful for all the prophets and think they were all equally important to the restoration of the church." No, it's almost always, "I'm thankful for Joseph Smith and <insert current prophet>." So, while they may be recognized during their time as prophet, they are NOT given equal weight.

I'll quibble here. "Many people who left eh early church were justified in their anger that drove them from Mormonism." I'm not sure I agree with that. Under what standard is such justification pronounced?

Perhaps they gave up everything to follow Joseph, only to see Joseph anger the locals with his questionable activities and run the Mormons out time and time again? I think that might make me upset.

[Nofear]

I disagree. When mentioning prophets, I rarely, if ever, hear "I am greatful for all the prophets and think they were all equally important to the restoration of the church." No, it's almost always, "I'm thankful for Joseph Smith and <insert current prophet>." So, while they may be recognized during their time as prophet, they are NOT given equal weight.

I don't think lack of equality in contributions and recognition of the leadership necessarily makes the organization a "personality cult".

[Jason]

Can you be a cult of personality when the personality has been dead 160 years?

Is Christianity a cult of personality? How about Islam?

[The Nehor]

Can you be a cult of personality when the personality has been dead 160 years?

Not likely.

Is Christianity a cult of personality?

Yes, it's about Jesus Christ. Luckily for us when he died he didn't stay dead.

How about Islam?

Don't think so.

[smac97]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws.

I'm curious why you would actively seek to extract such concessions from Latter-day Saints.

My wife has flaws, but I wouldn't be inclined to talk about such things to third parties.

So context matters. A discussion of Joseph's flaws with an eye toward fault-finding would not go over well with observant Latter-day Saints.

I disagree. When mentioning prophets, I rarely, if ever, hear "I am greatful for all the prophets and think they were all equally important to the restoration of the church."

You apparently missed my parenthetical observation: We listen to the words of past prophets (with, I think, an added emphasis on Joseph since he was the founding prophet of this dispensation and the author of so much scripture).

No, it's almost always, "I'm thankful for Joseph Smith and <insert current prophet>."

I often hear expressions of gratitude for latter-day prophets. That would include Joseph Smith, his successors, apostles, seventies, and even lay LDS who are "prophets" unto themselves.

The expression, then, denotes gratitude for the gift of revelation, together with some appreciation for the conduits through which that revelation is given.

So, while they may be recognized during their time as prophet, they are NOT given equal weight.

I did not say that. I said: "We listen to the words of past prophets."

Perhaps they gave up everything to follow Joseph, only to see Joseph anger the locals with his questionable activities and run the Mormons out time and time again? I think that might make me upset.

So the persecutions inflicted on the Saints were all a product of Joseph's "questionable activities?"

While we're at it, what were these "questionable activities?" How many of these "activities" were a product of Joseph's human frailties and how many were the product of his role as prophet, seer and revelator?

In any event, the part that I quibbled with was the reference to being justified in an anger "that drove them from Mormonism."

In the big scheme of things, I'm not sure such anger would be justified.

Example: When I was first married I was called to be the Teacher's Quorum advisor in my ward. One day the bishop called all the Deacons, Teachers and Priests together to a single meeting to announce that he had released the Teacher's Quorum President. This was news to the TQP, who looked very surprised. The bishop then lit into him, castigating him for missing meetings or being late to them (when the young man looked up, but bishop said something like this (in a loud, angry voice): "Yeah, that's right Tyler! I'm releasing you! You would have known that if you had attended your meeting this morning!"). He then called another teacher forward and set him apart as TQP on the spot.

The spirit of the meeting was awful. This young man could indeed have done a better job at his calling. But instead of counseling with him privately, the bishop humiliated him in front of his peers and friends.

This young man was a nice kid. He was a typical 15-year old. A little smart-alecky, more interested in B-Ball and girls than in scouts or church. But he was good. He needed improvement (like all of us), but he came to church and kept his nose clean at home and at school.

But his demeanor changed after the bishop's surprise. He became surly and indifferent at church. He wouldn't answer questions, or participate in discussions, or pay much attention to the lessons. He also started skipping some meetings altogether. His participation in scouting also waned.

I moved out of the ward a few months later, so I never found out what happened to this kid in the long run. But using him as an example, we can ask: Was he justified in his anger? Yes, I think so. But was he justified in letting that anger drive him out of the Church (if that is what happened)? No, I don't think so. The bishop handled the situation very poorly, but the bishop's error does not negate the truth claims of the LDS Church. Moreover, Latter-day Saints have an obligation to forgive others. That must include church leaders.

-Smac

[ttribe]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws. Many of them just simply don't want to know.

Interesting...that hasn't been my experience at all. Perhaps it's the locale?

[emeliza]

I have found that things I believe would be a flaw on JS are not considered a flaw by others and vice versa. I think that is probably one reason many are not willing to start pointing fingers. Funny enough that happens in real life as well. Something I perceive as a flaw isn't considered one to another person even when I think it is my own flaw.

However if you ask a member if JS was perfect, they will say no. Sometimes they will even say somethings they find to be imperfect. I doubt you will get them to really critize him though as they love him. Now find someone they don't love and they will probably have no problem.

[volgadon]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws. Many of them just simply don't want to know.

I disagree. When mentioning prophets, I rarely, if ever, hear "I am greatful for all the prophets and think they were all equally important to the restoration of the church." No, it's almost always, "I'm thankful for Joseph Smith and <insert current prophet>." So, while they may be recognized during their time as prophet, they are NOT given equal weight.

Perhaps they gave up everything to follow Joseph, only to see Joseph anger the locals with his questionable activities and run the Mormons out time and time again? I think that might make me upset.

I usually say all prophets from JS to <insert current prophet>.

And my parents have always taught me that JS and the rest of them did have flaws.

[Calm]

I hear members speak gratefully when they've discovered a particular flaw in a prophet or respected church leader. It generally goes along with "this gives me hope I can do better myself" or something along the lines.

[Obiwan]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws. Many of them just simply don't want to know.

I disagree. When mentioning prophets, I rarely, if ever, hear "I am greatful for all the prophets and think they were all equally important to the restoration of the church." No, it's almost always, "I'm thankful for Joseph Smith and <insert current prophet>." So, while they may be recognized during their time as prophet, they are NOT given equal weight.

Perhaps they gave up everything to follow Joseph, only to see Joseph anger the locals with his questionable activities and run the Mormons out time and time again? I think that might make me upset.

The "issue" is not whether Joseph had "flaws" FACTUALLY speaking. It's what those flaws actually are FACTUALLY and EVIDENTIARILY speaking.

Every mormon knows he was a man. But, we take umbridge to the "ideas" spread by anti-mormonism which are mostly slander, with usually no evidence, or only a little for which no real conclusion can be made, except the proponderance that he actually was a good and honest man. The "evidences" of that is plentiful. The "evidences" that he was slime, is slim. But, I guess a lot of people like the "slim fantasy's" compared to reality.

[juliann]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws. Many of them just simply don't want to know.

I'd like to hear the questions you are asking. It is rare to have a lesson on JS where something is not said about his lack of perfection. It tends to be emphasized. However....it is considered inconsequential in the larger picture. So it isn't that faults aren't acknowledged....it is just that it doesn't matter to most. So I doubt few are motivated to spend time ruminating on his failings.

[Ray Agostini]

I would like Latter-day Saints to keep this sort of thing in mind. We cannot look at the Church as being perfected and without flaw.

When we think the Church is without flaw or is perfect, we set ourselves up for disappointment and discouragement. We risk alienating ourselves from the Church because the Church turns out to need work and effort.

Isn't this essentially what Ronald Poelman said in his [later edited] 1984 conference address?:

However, there is a distinction between them which is significant and it is very important that this distinction be understood. and there is an essential relationship between them that is significant and very important.

Of equal importance is understanding the essential relationship between the gospel and the Church. Failure to distinguish between the two and to comprehend their proper relationship may lead to confusion and misplaced priorities with unrealistic and therefore failed expectations. This in turn may result in diminished benefits and blessings and, in extreme instances, even disaffections.

So what happens to the often repeated phrase, "the Church is perfect, the members are not"?

Btw, I think you make some good points in this post. It's quite refreshing.

[ttribe]

So what happens to the often repeated phrase, "the Church is perfect, the members are not"?

Chalk that one up to more "legend" than substance. And, I'll admit to having said it before.

[jwhitlock]

Over time, I've come to the conclusion that it is just as important to have a testimony of what the Church, its leaders and its members are not, as well as a testimony of what the Church and its leaders are.

In doing so, I have been able to better focus on the saving relationship with God that being a member of the Church and receiving the ordinances provides me. I also am better able to realize that the imperfections found in members of the Church are there because they are... well, imperfect. And it was understood from the beginning that this would be the case, and such has been the pattern from the beginning.

I'm reminded of this again not only because of this post, but because of some conversations I've been having lately with a Jehovah's Witness. The JWs seem to go to great lengths to prove they are the only ones engaging in "true and correct worship". In doing so, I think they set a great many people up for disappointment as they join the organization, and come to the stark reality that not everything is perfect as expected.

Good OP, smac, and good points made.

[katherine the great]

I moved out of the ward a few months later, so I never found out what happened to this kid in the long run. But using him as an example, we can ask: Was he justified in his anger? Yes, I think so. But was he justified in letting that anger drive him out of the Church (if that is what happened)? No, I don't think so. The bishop handled the situation very poorly, but the bishop's error does not negate the truth claims of the LDS Church. Moreover, Latter-day Saints have an obligation to forgive others. That must include church leaders.

-Smac

That was absolutely inexcusable. The Bishop was an adult and the fifteen year old was a child. Children's brains are not fully developed and they cannot be expected to behave in the same way we should expect adults to act.

[clairc829]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws. Many of them just simply don't want to know.

Could it be the way you approach the subject?

[tsubotsubo]

I'm an active mormon, and I do find a lot of members I know think Joseph Smith is perfect. When they talk about him, there's a lot of deification going on, which is obviously wrong. Joseph Smith is not a god, and we do no worship him.

I think the fact is, that the church doesn't focus on mistakes that Joseph Smith made, as they're not so faith-promoting, so a lot of church members are unaware of them.

When I've said to people, 'Joseph Smith wasn't perfect, he's made mistakes', I've had a few 'Don't say that!!' comments. While the people aren't directly saying that they believe that Joseph Smith was flawless, they're implying it, so that might be the case. However, whether their saying Joseph Smith was perfect or not, this is another case of deifying him.

I think it's important that we explain to all members that Joseph Smith was a human, and that he made mistakes. We need to personify him, not deify him. I'm just worried for those people that think Joseph Smith was perfect, and completely sinless. They're going to innocently stumble across some wikipedia article, or something like that, and have the shock of their lives...

Do we want people to find out that Joseph Smith married 14 year-old girls on exmormon.org, or in a Sunday School lesson, for example? Do we want them to find out about the Book of Abraham on fairwiki.org, or do we want an anti-mormon to tell them?

Some people have too high expectations of Joseph Smith, and other aspects of our religion, and I find it important that people are open to the possibility of our religion not being completely perfect, in every way. It can be really dangerous for them when they find out some of the things that we all know.

[Brenda]

By way of my own experience, it is AMAZINGLY difficult to get members to admit that JS had flaws. Many of them just simply don't want to know.

I wonder what the contemporaries of Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, etc, would have said about them. We have no problem thinking of them as prophets, and maybe that's because we just don't have all the opinions of their day. Actually we do have an idea of what Noah's and Lehi's neighbors thought. And come to think of it, many back then, thought the prophets of the OT were loony.