Maxine Hanks And Joseph Smith As Prophet

[Lamanite]

With Maxine's recent publicity I've been digging through some of her past work. As a result I found myself in Philip Lindholm's book Latter-day Dissent. In it Philip has asked Maxine, "Was Joseph Smith a prophet?" (pg.67) To which she replied in part:

"Believers view [Joseph's] revelations as divine, while non believers view them as human. I think his revelations reveal both influences....Revelation is both human and divine." (pg. 67-68)

Regarding the Book of Mormon she takes a similar approach:

"the Book of Mormon is scripture, a gospel. But is it ancient history? Believers say it's ancient. Critics say it's nineteenth century. I think it reflects qualities of both times. All scripture is couched in the culture of its time, shaped by its authors, editors, scribes, or transcribers; still, the human voice in the text doesn't negate the divine voice. Both voices are present in scripture." (pg. 68)

Any thoughts on her approach to Prophethood and/or Book of Mormon? Does anyone think this type of approach represents an individuals lack of faith, or perhaps an over emphasis on the intellect? Conversely, does anyone think Maxine's approach represents a balanced and faithful approach to the gospel?

Or any other interpretations, errors, or benefits to her way of thinking?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[ERayR]

With Maxine's recent publicity I've been digging through some of her past work. As a result I found myself in Philip Lindholm's book Latter-day Dissent. In it Philip has asked Maxine, "Was Joseph Smith a prophet?" (pg.67) To which she replied in part:

"Believers view [Joseph's] revelations as divine, while non believers view them as human. I think his revelations reveal both influences....Revelation is both human and divine." (pg. 67-68)

Regarding the Book of Mormon she takes a similar approach:

"the Book of Mormon is scripture, a gospel. But is it ancient history? Believers say it's ancient. Critics say it's nineteenth century. I think it reflects qualities of both times. All scripture is couched in the culture of its time, shaped by its authors, editors, scribes, or transcribers; still, the human voice in the text doesn't negate the divine voice. Both voices are present in scripture." (pg. 68)

Any thoughts on her approach to Prophethood and/or Book of Mormon? Does anyone think this type of approach represents an individuals lack of faith, or perhaps an over emphasis on the intellect? Conversely, does anyone think Maxine's approach represents a balanced and faithful approach to the gospel?

Or any other interpretations, errors, or benefits to her way of thinking?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Divine revelation comes through a prophet who is human.

[DBMormon]

I think each one of us must be careful if/when we come to a place where the Book of Mormon is no longer historical in our mind. If one comes to this conclusion one will find themself on a slippery slope where one can cast aside much of the church and the restored gospel because one no longer believes the founding events were historical..... While I try to value the informed opinions of others I also want to caution others that without a first vision, real metal plates, a real moroni, and real authority, this church is no better and likely worse then the rest. It will have been built upon fraud and deception.... there really isn't middle ground

By the way 2 things.

1.) I respect Sister Hanks journey and appreciate what she has been through. I think she is carefully wording her answers to indicate she recognizes she was not yet at a final conclusion when those words were written.

2.) All who have followed my threads realize I do not speak of faith crisis or unbelief as a dispassionate observer. So while perhaps wrong on my part, I feel suited to give these opinions

IMHO

Edited August 3, 2012 by DBMormon

[Lamanite]

I also want to caution others that without a first vision, real metal plates, a real moroni, and real authority, this church is no better and likely worse then the rest. It will have been built upon fraud and deception.... there really isn't middle ground

I personally believe in the BoM's historicity and sacred nature. I think we can also all agree that to a greater or lesser degree we can see the imprint of humanity on all of our sacred writ. Additionally, I can certainly see the attraction for some members to emphasize a human element in scripture so as to be able to explain certain issues.

For example one of the most difficult issues with the BoM for me is the anachronistic insertion of Deutero-Isaiah. Attributing it to Joseph is a nice and neat explanation for some. Even if you attribute divine guidance as his reason for inserting that text it still works out pretty well.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 4, 2012 by Lamanite

[volgadon]

For example one of the most difficult issues with the BoM for me is the anachronistic insertion of Deutero-Isaiah. Attributing it to Joseph is a nice and neat explanation for some. Even if you attribute divine guidance as his reason for inserting that text it still works out pretty well.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

It is an easy fix, but I think one that creates more problems than it solves. Some of the Deutero-Isaiah chapters are integral parts of the BoM narrative and theology.

[The Nehor]

With Maxine's recent publicity I've been digging through some of her past work. As a result I found myself in Philip Lindholm's book Latter-day Dissent. In it Philip has asked Maxine, "Was Joseph Smith a prophet?" (pg.67) To which she replied in part:

"Believers view [Joseph's] revelations as divine, while non believers view them as human. I think his revelations reveal both influences....Revelation is both human and divine." (pg. 67-68)

Regarding the Book of Mormon she takes a similar approach:

"the Book of Mormon is scripture, a gospel. But is it ancient history? Believers say it's ancient. Critics say it's nineteenth century. I think it reflects qualities of both times. All scripture is couched in the culture of its time, shaped by its authors, editors, scribes, or transcribers; still, the human voice in the text doesn't negate the divine voice. Both voices are present in scripture." (pg. 68)

Any thoughts on her approach to Prophethood and/or Book of Mormon? Does anyone think this type of approach represents an individuals lack of faith, or perhaps an over emphasis on the intellect? Conversely, does anyone think Maxine's approach represents a balanced and faithful approach to the gospel?

So basically everyone is right? I taught that in the Book of Mormon. Then a git named Gideon came along and was wrong and I had to kill him in a duel. Then the Nephites executed me on some trumped-up charge. Bigots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

I don't believe that taking two mutually exclusive statements and saying both are right is a good way to go about discerning truth. Most try to dodge this by arguing that if both understood they'd realize they weren't opposed at all. In other words the person making the argument is saying both sides are idiots.

[KevinG]

It is a nice thought and illustrative of how I understand the revelatory process. Why did Joseph write in King James prose? Easy it was the language of sacred ideas and expressions he learned from the Bible as a boy. When he translated revelations from the plates and the voices of angels it is that prose he expressed those sacred ideas in for us.

This does not change the message and in some cases the ancient structures and idioms still sneak through the translation process. However the idioms are rich with 19th century Americanisms and King James phrases.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[Evangeline]

I think I would need to read the original context of Maxine's quotes to understand her position better, but they seem to make sense to me as well.

Revelation is communication from God, but we interpret His communications with a finite human understanding. We already know how difficult it is to translate from language to another, for example.

I'm thinking about how two different priesthood holders could give two very different blessings to an individual. They would both still be speaking on behalf of God, but their choice of words would be unique. Perhaps one of those priesthood holders has a larger vocabulary or a better command of the language than the other. Perhaps one of them is naturally more talkative, and therefore more likely to give lengthier blessings than the other. Despite their differences, both blessings would have a divine source and be equally valid.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Evangeline

[DonBradley]

It's always wise to consider the chronology of statements and events.

The interviews in this book, though just published in the last couple years, were done several years ago; and I believe Maxine last edited hers about three years ago, when we were next door neighbors. She returned to the Church just six months ago.

So, while much that she said then might still apply, some might not. And I can tell you for certain that her positive affirmatiom of Joseph Smith then is greatly exceeded by the testimony she has now.

That said, her words from a few years back have a great generosity, especially for one who was not LDS, and it's obvious that her journey had greatly widened her perspective. Maxine is a deep and reflective thinker, then and now.

Don

[Lamanite]

It's always wise to consider the chronology of statements and events.

Thanks for your comments Don. I'm really glad that Maxine has grown in ways that have increased her discipleship and have brought her increased joy.

In regards to my OP, I was trying to use her past comments to illustrate certain methodologies when approaching Prophethood, revelations, and sacred scripture. I didn't mean to misrepresent her views then or now.

*As an aside, I wonder through what lens we should view her past writings? An purely academic lens? A lens that represents her views as they were when she wrote the publication. Or a lens that allows us to view her publications through her current belief system (as best as we can ascertain)? Should we re-evaluate publications based on the authors paradigm shifts or constantly evolving spiritual beliefs. One example that comes to my mind that is Malcolm X. How do we consider his personal ideologies at the beginning of his ministry as contrasted with his teachings towards the end of his life?

There's a couple of good questions in that paragraph that I would love to hear some other peoples thoughts.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

http://en.wikipedia....t_to_moderation

I don't believe that taking two mutually exclusive statements and saying both are right is a good way to go about discerning truth. Most try to dodge this by arguing that if both understood they'd realize they weren't opposed at all. In other words the person making the argument is saying both sides are idiots.

Curious as to which statements or "approaches" are mutually exclusive and why?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The Nehor]

Curious as to which statements or "approaches" are mutually exclusive and why?

I think she goes too far in conflating the two. Either the Book of Mormon was revealed by divine influence or it was not. It cannot be both revealed by God and revealed by men. I don't deny that Joseph left his stamp on the book but based on her writings I do not think that is what she means here.

[cdowis]

It is an easy fix, but I think one that creates more problems than it solves. Some of the Deutero-Isaiah chapters are integral parts of the BoM narrative and theology.

Not intending to change the subject, but the so-called Deutero-Isaiah theory is a theoretical construct, has been tested against a real world ancient text, and failed that test. The only "problem" is that some individuals do not realize that the horse pulls the cart, not vise versa.

Edited August 4, 2012 by cdowis

[CV75]

With Maxine's recent publicity I've been digging through some of her past work. As a result I found myself in Philip Lindholm's book Latter-day Dissent. In it Philip has asked Maxine, "Was Joseph Smith a prophet?" (pg.67) To which she replied in part:

"Believers view [Joseph's] revelations as divine, while non believers view them as human. I think his revelations reveal both influences....Revelation is both human and divine." (pg. 67-68)

Regarding the Book of Mormon she takes a similar approach:

"the Book of Mormon is scripture, a gospel. But is it ancient history? Believers say it's ancient. Critics say it's nineteenth century. I think it reflects qualities of both times. All scripture is couched in the culture of its time, shaped by its authors, editors, scribes, or transcribers; still, the human voice in the text doesn't negate the divine voice. Both voices are present in scripture." (pg. 68)

Any thoughts on her approach to Prophethood and/or Book of Mormon? Does anyone think this type of approach represents an individuals lack of faith, or perhaps an over emphasis on the intellect? Conversely, does anyone think Maxine's approach represents a balanced and faithful approach to the gospel?

Or any other interpretations, errors, or benefits to her way of thinking?

The quotes you provided are similar to posts I've seen on this board. She is asserting an opinion, and of course we can all find reasons how "revelation" can be both human and divine, and how scripture is a good example of the human voice not negating the divinity of the text. Some people have less patience with prophets' human voices delivering divine revelation, but this is not the same as a human voice delivering a human revelation.

When it comes to receiving a prophet's revelation, each of us have different skills in discerning which is human and which is divine. Our testimony about the Lord and His dealings, both with us personally and with the Church, will help us handle either as members of a body with charity and grace.

[Carborendum]

The quotes mentioned show a person wishing to walk a fine line. Without knowing her personally, I can't claim I know which side of the line she's coming from. Her statements essentially indicate:

"While divinely inspired, even prophets are human and therefore fallible."

But this can be taken with drastically differing attitudes:

1) We respect the words of the prophets as divinely inspired. It is for us to receive personal revelation to discern the truth of all their words. This is the check and balance that helps screen out the minor errors prophets' humanity may introduce into their utterances.

OR

2) Since prophets are only human, and we are all capable of personal revelation, we can pick and choose which words we wish to accept or reject. Anything we don't like, we'll just say "it's obviously not inspired." And we wash our hands of it.

Both interpretations essentially say the same thing. But it is the attitude that changes the entire meaning and therefore, result.

[Lamanite]

Not intending to change the subject, but the so-called Deutero-Isaiah theory is a theoretical construct, has been tested against a real world ancient text, and failed that test. The only "problem" is that some individuals do not realize that the horse pulls the cart, not vise versa.

Could you please provide me with a source discussing this statement, "tested against a real world ancient text, and failed". I'm personally invested in this subject and it would really help me. Thanks.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I think she goes too far in conflating the two. Either the Book of Mormon was revealed by divine influence or it was not. It cannot be both revealed by God and revealed by men. I don't deny that Joseph left his stamp on the book but based on her writings I do not think that is what she means here.

It seems that your 3rd sentence directly contradicts the 1st and 2nd. A bit confusing.

Anyway,

Statement: The Book of Mormon was translated "by divine influence".

Statement: The Book of Mormon has also been influenced by humans.

Why are these statements mutually exclusive? Are they both not true?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

The quotes mentioned show a person wishing to walk a fine line. Without knowing her personally, I can't claim I know which side of the line she's coming from. Her statements essentially indicate:

"While divinely inspired, even prophets are human and therefore fallible."

But this can be taken with drastically differing attitudes:

1) We respect the words of the prophets as divinely inspired. It is for us to receive personal revelation to discern the truth of all their words. This is the check and balance that helps screen out the minor errors prophets' humanity may introduce into their utterances.

OR

2) Since prophets are only human, and we are all capable of personal revelation, we can pick and choose which words we wish to accept or reject. Anything we don't like, we'll just say "it's obviously not inspired." And we wash our hands of it.

Both interpretations essentially say the same thing. But it is the attitude that changes the entire meaning and therefore, result.

Taking the position that Prophetic utterances are divine and absolute is probably the easiest approach to Mormonism and modern day Prophets and revelation. Simply because it requires absolute obedience without questioning or thinking about many different spiritual and temporal issues. Non-members see a host of problems with this type of faithful obedience (Jone's town massacre) but it really is something each individual has to determine.

Taking a position that a Prophet leads the Church according to God's will "most" of the time but may make mistakes due to his humanity may become problematic for the Church and for the members. Something as simple as the direction to wear earrings a certain way may be evidence to some that cultural and generational influences have crept into the Prophets counsel.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 4, 2012 by Lamanite

[The Nehor]

It seems that your 3rd sentence directly contradicts the 1st and 2nd. A bit confusing.

Anyway,

Statement: The Book of Mormon was translated "by divine influence".

Statement: The Book of Mormon has also been influenced by humans.

Why are these statements mutually exclusive? Are they both not true?

Big UP!

Lamanite

I do not agree that those two statements are what Maxine was saying.

[CV75]

evidence to some that cultural and generational influences have crept into the Prophets counsel.

This can indeed be a stumbling block for some. But people with the gift of the Holy Ghost are better off being true to what they have and not being distracted by evidence they find to the contrary.

For example, if people accept that President Hinckley was speaking without inspiration or authority, the conclusion need not be that everything else they hold dear about the Restoration of the Gospel is a lie.Or they needn't become contentious about it and lose the Spirit of peace they have been enjoying. They might consider what they can learn from this experieince that would make them a better disciple of Christ.

Those that assume the best about the counsel they receive will find hidden treasure as guided by the Holy Ghost. In a way it really doesn't matter how bad a job a prophet might be doing, the covenants we make in the Lord's name and priesthood are still authentic. And we have the Lord's asurance that the faithful will not be led astray or the elect deceived.

[why me]

Or any other interpretations, errors, or benefits to her way of thinking?

Big UP!

Lamanite

When did she say this? The problem is when she said it. Since she came back to the church she may have changed her mind. And if so, it becomes a mute point what she said in the past.

[why me]

It's always wise to consider the chronology of statements and events.

The interviews in this book, though just published in the last couple years, were done several years ago; and I believe Maxine last edited hers about three years ago, when we were next door neighbors. She returned to the Church just six months ago.

So, while much that she said then might still apply, some might not. And I can tell you for certain that her positive affirmatiom of Joseph Smith then is greatly exceeded by the testimony she has now.

That said, her words from a few years back have a great generosity, especially for one who was not LDS, and it's obvious that her journey had greatly widened her perspective. Maxine is a deep and reflective thinker, then and now.

Don

And this is the problem with any quotation that one takes from the past. People move on. And you know this too. If one takes a quotation from you 3 years ago, they may head in the wrong direction with it since you have grown in knowledge and in belief. In fact, the same can be said for any person who puts pen to paper or gives public presentations.

[Lamanite]

Those that assume the best about the counsel they receive will find hidden treasure as guided by the Holy Ghost.

Personally I found great blessing by following the teachings and guidance of a Prophet. However, I wonder how I would react if my Prophet told me that men of African decent could no longer hold the Priesthood. Would I question the divinity of this new direction? Would I question whether or not it was culturally or personally motivated? What if I didn't receive confirmation from the Holy Ghost that this was God's will?

What if I was at Mountain Meadows and decided not to "assume the best" about what was taking place? What if I instead of following along I decided to pray about the situation and whether my leaders were operating under the Divine guidance and direction of God?

And in both cases is there a mechanism for dissent embedded within the Church. We already have the answer....Think and believe what you want but keep it to yourself.

Just some hypothetical mental experiments to help flesh out the issues.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[why me]

Just some hypothetical mental experiments to help flesh out the issues.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Difficult to answer hypotheticals. You will not know until you are tested. For the women who were sealed to Joseph as a plural wife, they were reluctant until a spiritual confirmation came. And they weren't involved in hypotheticals.

[Lamanite]

When did she say this? The problem is when she said it. Since she came back to the church she may have changed her mind. And if so, it becomes a mute point what she said in the past.

Perhaps you skipped over post #10. Quote:

"In regards to my OP, I was trying to use her past comments to illustrate certain methodologies when approaching Prophethood, revelations, and sacred scripture. I didn't mean to misrepresent her views then or now."

The importance was not Maxine and when she said something, it was whether or not her past approaches to the aforementioned issues has any value today.

Big UP!

Lamanite