Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[Scott Lloyd]

This thread is prompted by a blog post I just saw from Daniel Peterson.

 

It would seem there is a graph floating around whose authors purport to demonstrate that the Church is backing away from honoring the Prophet Joseph Smith as the prophet of the Restoration and is becoming more "mainstream" -- whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

As Dr. Peterson points out in the blog post, the authors of the graph, which is based on spoken references in general conference, missed some obvious reasons for the ups and downs (click on the link to read the details).

 

This comes to my attention the day after our high priests meeting lesson on Joseph Smith from the Ezra Taft Benson Teachings of Presidents of the Church manual.

 

The question was posed in the lesson: "How has your life been influenced by the Prophet Joseph Smith."

 

I will repeat unabashedly what I replied then: In every meaningful way, my life has been influenced by the Prophet Joseph.

 

When I served my mission back in the '70s, one of the tracts we had available to us for distribution was a pamphlet, the title of which (retranslated back into English from Swedish; I never learned the original English title) was "This We Have Received through Joseph Smith". It enumerated a long list of truths and doctrines that are available to the world today through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph, not the least of which is a knowledge of the Plan of Happiness, or the Plan of Salvation, or the Plan of Exaltation. This gives meaning to my life, as it has done since I first learned of it while a young boy.

 

As an aside, I have become somewhat known for the timers I set for predictions people make.

 

The first time I did such a thing was back in the days of the old Zion's Light Message Board back in the '90s and early 2000s.. A poster there who went by the screen name "brianspro" predicted that within I think it was 10 years, the Church would have drifted so far from its uniqueness and into the "mainstream" that it would be virtually indistinguishable from any Protestant sect. I didn't have the timer app then that I do now, but I did set an alarm in my Palm PDA for 10 years into the future.

 

In the meantime, Palm went out of business, the PDA became space junk, and consequently, I lost track of brianspro's prediction. But a year or so ago, I ran across a post I had written that made reference to it, and realized the deadline -- in 2013, I think it was -- had come and gone, and the Church had not drifted into the "mainstream" in any meaningful sense.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

Can't speak for others obviously but I had a powerful spiritual experience in the mission field in relation to the prophet Joseph smith so for me I can say he has affected my life for the better

[Gray]

There isn't enough data to conclude anything meaningful about the recent drop. One data point can't really tell you anything. 

[ALarson]

I've seen this posted too.  It's interesting, but who knows why the drop in the number of times Joseph Smith was mentioned in General Conference?  There was quite a dramatic drop.

 

Here are the numbers I saw regarding the frequency of a speaker mentioning Joseph Smith from 2005 until present:

 

 

Conference    Frequency

Oct 2005            84

Apr 2006            33

Oct 2006            21

Apr 2007            39

Oct 2007            21

Apr 2008            41

Oct 2008            36

Apr 2009            27

Oct 2009            40

Apr 2010            27

Oct 2010            35

Apr 2011            21

Oct 2011            25

Apr 2012            29

Oct 2012            24

Apr 2013            27

Oct 2013            21

Apr 2014            32

Oct 2014            34

Apr 2015              4
 

Edited April 13, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

I've seen this posted too.  It's interesting, but who knows why the drop in the number of times Joseph Smith was mentioned in General Conference?  

 

Here are the numbers I saw regarding the frequency from 2005 until present:

 

Here are the hard numbers:

Conference Frequency Oct 2005 84 Apr 2006 33 Oct 2006 21 Apr 2007 39 Oct 2007 21 Apr 2008 41 Oct 2008 36 Apr 2009 27 Oct 2009 40 Apr 2010 27 Oct 2010 35 Apr 2011 21 Oct 2011 25 Apr 2012 29 Oct 2012 24 Apr 2013 27 Oct 2013 21 Apr 2014 32 Oct 2014 34 Apr 2015 4

 

 

(Edited to try and fix how the chart copied, I'll keep trying if this doesn't work.)

Or just follow the link from Peterson's blog, to which I linked here.

 

Far from finding the chart interesting, I'll give it a resounding meh.

 

As Daniel pointed out, the obvious reason for the high number in 2005 was that it was the bicentennial year of the Prophet's birth.

 

And this seems to be a case of the Church --in the eyes of the critics -- being damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

 

A while back, in response to an allegation that Joseph Smith is mentioned more frequently in conference than Christ, I did a word search count and found that there was no comparison: By far and overwhelmingly, Christ was mentioned more often.

[JLHPROF]

No the Church isn't ashamed of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The Church is ashamed of any "out there" teachings from its past (official or non-official).

Being more palatable to investigators is always a concern of the leaders.  They are very careful which of our "unique" beliefs to stand firm on and which to downplay or dismiss.

 

There has been a definite change in the way Joseph is talked about among members.  Whether its source is the Church itself I couldn't say.  But if you don't think Joseph is spoken about differently by members today than he was 50, 100, 150 years ago you probably haven't been paying attention.

 

Goodness knows I've received enough negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago.

[ALarson]

As Daniel pointed out, the obvious reason for the high number in 2005 was that it was the bicentennial year of the Prophet's birth.

 

 

Yes, this was pointed out on the website where I saw these numbers.  It stated this:

 

Average = 31.05 per conference (29.6 excluding the extremes).

Median = 28.

High = 84 in Oct 2005

Low = 4 in Apr 2015

Interesting notes:

October 2005 was so high because it was both the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birth and the 175th anniversary of the creation of the church...

 

[Scott Lloyd]

No the Church isn't ashamed of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The Church is ashamed of any "out there" teachings from its past (official or non-official).

Being more palatable to investigators is always a concern of the leaders.  They are very careful which of our "unique" beliefs to stand firm on and which to downplay or dismiss.

 

There has been a definite change in the way Joseph is talked about among members.  Whether its source is the Church itself I couldn't say.  But if you don't think Joseph is spoken about differently by members today than he was 50, 100, 150 years ago you probably haven't been paying attention.

 

Goodness knows I've received enough negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago.

As part of the discussion in our high priests meeting, the prophecy of the angel Moroni was brought up that Joseph would be both good and evil spoken of among all people. I commented that to see the fulfillment of the part of the prophecy pertaining to evil speaking of the Prophet, one need only do a Google search. I said that some of the evil speaking is even seen among some who style themselves as members of the Church and that when I see such a thing, I am prompted to ask the commenters, "How does it feel to be bringing about the fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy?"

 

Incidentally, before the Joseph Smith detractors get too gleeful, they should bear in mind that two of the Church's major websites are www.josephsmith.net and www.josephsmithpapers.org.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

As part of the discussion in our high priests meeting, the prophecy of the angel Moroni was brought up that Joseph would be both good and evil spoken of among all people. I commented that to see the fulfillment of the part of the prophecy pertaining to evil speaking of the Prophet, one need only do a Google search. I said that some of the evil speaking is even seen among some who style themselves as members of the Church and that when I see such a thing, I am prompted to ask the commenters, "How does it feel to be bringing about the fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy?"

 

Incidentally, before the Joseph Smith detractors get too gleeful, the should bear in mind that two of the Church's major websites are www.josephsmith.net and www.josephsmithpapers.org.

 

When I bring up the idea that Joseph Smith will judge this dispensation, authorize our resurrection, or that his calling is different from the men that have succeeded him I usually get a negative response.

 

I have seen it posted here by members that singing "Praise to the Man" makes them uncomfortable, that any meeting that isn't about Christ is wrong, and that doesn't even include all those members who think Joseph was corrupt in restoring plural marriage.

 

Yeah, our membership attitude to the head of this dispensation has definitely changed, and not for the better.  But I don't think the Church itself has caused it.

[ALarson]

As part of the discussion in our high priests meeting, the prophecy of the angel Moroni was brought up that Joseph would be both good and evil spoken of among all people. I commented that to see the fulfillment of the part of the prophecy pertaining to evil speaking of the Prophet, one need only do a Google search. I said that some of the evil speaking is even seen among some who style themselves as members of the Church and that when I see such a thing, I am prompted to ask the commenters, "How does it feel to be bringing about the fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy?"

I think telling the truth about Joseph Smith is quite different from "evil speaking".  With the introduction of the essays, many members are learning or being exposed to some new information about Joseph Smith and some are struggling with this.  

 

(And yes, I know the information was always "out there", but that doesn't change the fact that many members were unaware of some issues with church history that weren't often discussed.)

[Gray]

The big focus of the last GC was the Proclamation on the Family. It shouldn't be surprising that Joseph Smith wasn't mentioned much (I don't recall seeing his signature on the bottom) 

[JLHPROF]

I think telling the truth about Joseph Smith is quite different from "evil speaking".  With the introduction of the essays, many members are learning or being exposed to some new information about Joseph Smith and some are struggling with this. 

 

I can understand this.  I have never had that issue so sometimes I can be unsympathetic to those that do.  But I find myself thinking when I do come across it that just as Joseph said, it is because when anything comes along that is contrary to our traditions we fly apart.

The "truth" about Joseph Smith is that much of his life did run contrary to tradition.  Just as the Savior's did.  We've just had 2000 years to get used to the changes to tradition that the Savior restored to society and only 200 for the ones the Prophet did.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think telling the truth about Joseph Smith is quite different from "evil speaking".

Marshaling a carefully selected -- and slanted -- set of "facts" severed from explanatory context to convey a negative impression is quite different from telling the truth. And I think it would certainly fall under the classification of evil speaking.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Presumably, Relief Societies and priesthood quorums and groups throughout the Church took up the same lesson our high priests group did yesterday -- or they did so very recently or will do so in the very near future.

 

This also needs to be borne in mind before concluding from a single general conference word search that the Church is distancing itself from Joseph Smith.

[tonie]

It is suspicious that Peterson does not cite a source; allowing the reader to investigate what the chart is being used for.

It appears the chart originated using a BYU database designed to show frequency of phrases or words during General Confrrence.

Edited April 13, 2015 by tonie

[ALarson]

Marshaling a carefully selected -- and slanted -- set of "facts" severed from explanatory context to convey a negative impression is quite different from telling the truth. And I think it would certainly fall under the classification of evil speaking.

Well, most I know who are going through a faith crisis right now are doing so after reading the church essays and from learning more details about Joseph's polygamy and polyandry (and that he used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon).  So the truth is causing members to struggle.  No slanting or explanatory context to convey a negative impression was needed.

Edited April 13, 2015 by ALarson

[cinepro]

You can do your own research here:

BYU Conference Corpus

A simple search for "Joseph Smith" shows the following decade-by-decade breakdown:

1900s - 895
1910s - 1103
1920s - 1386
1930s - 867
1940s - 890
1950s - 784
1960s - 1166
1970s - 1055
1980s - 793
1990s - 807
2000s - 991
2010 - 2011 - 351

There can be huge swings between years because one or two talks about "Joseph Smith" drastically change the count.

 

That being said, I think the only rational response the graph is "So what, this isn't the Church of Joseph Smith". 

 

If someone circulated a graph showing that references to Heber J. Grant had declined precipitously in the past few years, I would have the same reaction. 

 

 

And for those who are interested, here's the graph:

 

Edited April 13, 2015 by cinepro

[Buckeye]

...

 

The first time I did such a thing was back in the days of the old Zion's Light Message Board back in the '90s and early 2000s.. A poster there who went by the screen name "brianspro" predicted that within I think it was 10 years, the Church would have drifted so far from its uniqueness and into the "mainstream" that it would be virtually indistinguishable from any Protestant sect. I didn't have the timer app then that I do now, but I did set an alarm in my Palm PDA for 10 years into the future.

 

Any chance that brianspro is related to cinepro? I assume that, just like cine, his name is pronounced "brianspro."

 

 

In the meantime, Palm went out of business, the PDA became space junk, and consequently, I lost track of brianspro's prediction. But a year or so ago, I ran across a post I had written that made reference to it, and realized the deadline -- in 2013, I think it was -- had come and gone, and the Church had not drifted into the "mainstream" in any meaningful sense.

 

Beautiful. I hereby predict that within 25 years Scott will have lost track of all of his prediction trackers, including the one he will now start to begin tracking this prediction.

[Buckeye]

 

 

Incidentally, before the Joseph Smith detractors get too gleeful, they should bear in mind that two of the Church's major websites are www.josephsmith.net and www.josephsmithpapers.org.

 

Though that could just be an attempt to keep others from taking the names for a porn site and then holding the church hostage, as what happened with mormon.com.

[JLHPROF]

That being said, I think the only rational response the graph is "So what, this isn't the Church of Joseph Smith". 

 

If someone circulated a graph showing that references to Heber J. Grant had declined precipitously in the past few years, I would have the same reaction.

 

There is a huge difference between the role of Joseph Smith and the role of Heber J. Grant.

But I agree that this is Christ's Church first and foremost.

[smac97]

No the Church isn't ashamed of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The Church is ashamed of any "out there" teachings from its past (official or non-official).

Being more palatable to investigators is always a concern of the leaders.  They are very careful which of our "unique" beliefs to stand firm on and which to downplay or dismiss.

 

There has been a definite change in the way Joseph is talked about among members.  Whether its source is the Church itself I couldn't say.  But if you don't think Joseph is spoken about differently by members today than he was 50, 100, 150 years ago you probably haven't been paying attention.

 

Goodness knows I've received enough negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago.

 

CFR, if you please, regarding your last statement ("I've received enough negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago.").

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, most I know who are going through a faith crisis right now are doing so after reading the church essays and from learning more details about Joseph's polygamy and polyandry (and that he used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon).  So the truth is causing members to struggle.  No slanting or explanatory context to convey a negative impression was needed.

Are you sure that's the <only> factor?

At least that's the story they're sticking with for now, huh?

Reminds me of Dehlin's self-selected "survey." Seems like every respondent stuck to the same talking points, including the assertion that "apologists" had driven them out of the Church.

[JLHPROF]

 

CFR, if you please, regarding your last statement ("I've received enough negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago.").

Thanks,

-Smac

 

My post history doesn't go back that far.  Do you expect me to go thread by thread?

[Scott Lloyd]

It is suspicious that Peterson does not cite a source; allowing the reader to investigate what the chart is being used for.

It appears the chart originated using a BYU database designed to show frequency of phrases or words during General Confrrence.

Maybe he didn't want to drive traffic to a website of detractors. I can't blame him for that, and there's nothing particularly sinister about it.

If you know where it came from, why don't you link to the source.

Suspicious!

[Buckeye]

My post history doesn't go back that far.  Do you expect me to go thread by thread?

 

I think he just wants to know what "standard view" you expressed that illicted negative responses.