Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[jackson20]

JLHPROF, on 15 Apr 2015 - 1:55 PM, said:

 

 

What more evidence do we need of a change in view of the Prophet Joseph by many members?

The Church may not be ashamed, but there are certainly many members who no longer revere the man, just the bits of the restored gospel they agree with.

 

Interesting comment....if many members  seem to be taking the time to do studies on Church history and no longer revere the man....then how can they remain in the Mormon Faith ....as Mormonism is based on the foundation teaching of JS?   Just seems unusual to me.

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Members then and members now have problems with Joseph as evidenced by multitudes of defections. He had many qualities worthy of praise but also many actions which appear vile. The church identifies some of those actions and offers no explanation other than, "Joseph was good because we say so". The church has a terrible record in propping Joseph up and praising him as the man who has done more for mankind save Jesus himself while burying dirty details of his life. It's no wonder people are left scratching their heads and coming to their own conclusions.

 

So you are arguing that there has been no change in the way the average Church member views Joseph?

Regardless of cause, I think that the polygamy essays alone have provided enough member response to show a change.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Joseph's statement on "seeing God and living" refers to the presence of God.

The first vision was a vision -

 

I prefer to think of it as a "vision" instead of a "visitation" which many hold to. But we can't even agree about this. Vision/Visitation? The church says its a vision but treats it like a visitation. Some definitive clarity would be great.

[JLHPROF]

 

JLHPROF, on 15 Apr 2015 - 1:55 PM, said:

 

Interesting comment....if many members  seem to be taking the time to do studies on Church history and no longer revere the man....then how can they remain in the Mormon Faith ....as Mormonism is based on the foundation teaching of JS?   Just seems unusual to me.

 

 

No, Mormonism is based on the revelations of God and Christ as revealed through the scriptures and the prophet Joseph Smith.  The true foundation of Mormonism is #1 - Jesus is our Savior, and #2 - that God speaks to man, always has and always will.

 

The atonement and revelation to guide us as God will.  That is the foundation.

[JLHPROF]

 

 

I prefer to think of it as a "vision" instead of a "visitation" which many hold to. But we can't even agree about this. Vision/Visitation? The church says its a vision but treats it like a visitation. Some definitive clarity would be great.

 

I can agree with this.

But as our new friend pointed out, how could it have been a visitation if Joseph had no ordinances and yet was in God's presence...it being a vision, regardless of random statements, makes sense, whereas it being a visitation doesn't.

[Senator]

The Church may not be ashamed, but there are certainly many members who no longer revere the man, just the bits of the restored gospel they agree with.

 

I think you might be suprised at how many of these individuals who are discovering things about Joseph, and reacting harshly to them, actually still may love and revere the man.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I can agree with this.

But as our new friend pointed out, how could it have been a visitation if Joseph had no ordinances and yet was in God's presence...it being a vision, regardless of random statements, makes sense, whereas it being a visitation doesn't.

 

I agree but many wouldn't. I would even argue that most would view the visitation as the orthodox interpretation. I don't think we can dismiss the confusion based on "random statements". It's confusion and chaos.

I also agree that the polygamy essays damaged JS credibility, as did the essays on 1st vision accounts, Book of Abraham translation and BoM translation. Suddenly much of what we thought we understood about Joseph and his prophetic role has shifted.

[Teancum]

The same could be said of you, of course. I have studied this topic and read much on it (including what you sent me again). Do I have it mastered? Probably not, but who does? You seem to insult anyone who disagrees with you which from what I've seen hasn't been very affective for you.

 

 

See because you reach a different conclusion than Scott does you don't really have a mastery of the issue and subject.  Your view is myopic, narrow, limited and reactionary.  You will not likely get past that with many here on that front. 

[Teancum]

But plural marriage ensured the survival of the Church in the crucial period when it was undergoing intense oppression and struggling to survive through the rigors of frontier settlement, all the while endeavoring to spread the gospel message in Europe, the British Isles and elsewhere.

 

 

Really?  How so. Please do tell and be specific rather than baseless assertions.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Teancum

[Gray]

Most polygamous households did not have "30, 50 or 100  children." More than two or three wives was the exception, as I understand it.

 

Plural marriage was not widely practiced in the Nauvoo period. It was revealed by then and introduced to a tight circle of the Prophet's associates but did not get going in earnest until the Utah period.

 

Do you know how many children were average per male polygamist? No need to search if you don't know (again, trying to be respectful of your time).

[Teancum]

It is true in a sense that they did give up.   Perhaps a sufficient number in the Church were not willing to fight and die and the Lord just gave up on the Church on continuing the practice.  I don't know why God did not do more to protect it like destroy a bunch of eastern US cities to keep the enemies occupied with other things.  I don't have a problem with the Church practicing polygamy and I don't have a problem with it not practicing it.  How it all ended does bring a bad taste in my mouth.  There are not too many issues in church history that brings some level of embarrassment to me but this is one that does.

 

 

Hmmmm maybe God did not defend it because God did not command it and did not care to defend it.  

[Gray]

So you are arguing that there has been no change in the way the average Church member views Joseph?

Regardless of cause, I think that the polygamy essays alone have provided enough member response to show a change.

 

I think there may have been some change. But it's for any one person to say for sure. 

[Teancum]

I don't get that from the link.

 

 

I did not provide the link.. There is loads of info that make it clear the Lecture were canonized, the doctrine of the 1835 D&C.  Approved and accepted by the leading councils of the Church.  The first in a potential series of doctrinal exposes.  Removed improperly without a vote in 1921 because they conflicted with the ever changing and evolving teachings about the Godhead that the LDS Church is faced with.

[Teancum]

Well, I've dealt with this before.

 

Plausibility is all that's needed to keep the question so that one can go to the Lord in prayer and seek a spiritual witness. That's all the Church is trying to do. So long as we keep the question open, we've won.

 

Great.  If you want to live your life on the slim proposition of plausibility more power to you. Just don't expect many to buy into it and don't take the high road that you have something more and better.  Plausibility is a weak premise to base so much of import on..  I used the think the Church had a stronger proposition. Apparently not.  And no you really are losing.

[Teancum]

Teacum, I have grown to like you. Truly. Since our interactions have become more cordial as of late, I hope you will allow me to point out the bolded portion of your comment. Since you complain from time to time about people misunderstanding you on this board. The bolded statement is a good reason why. You could have worded this so much different, not to mention respectfully, and still gotten the point (which is fair) across.

 

 

Ok point taken. So how about this.  The United State Government forced the LDS Leaders to give up something they said they never would.

 

Thanks for pointing out things that could be said better.

 

I like you too.

[rongo]

And a more financially secure husband, which was the apparent motivateion for many immigrant women (see Daynes' research as I mentioned before).

Not always. My founding Mormon ancestor was a poor amputee who emigrated to Nauvoo with his son (he was a widower. John Benbow paid for them to come to Zion). He remained poor his whole life, but went on to marry three wives, and they scraped by. One winter they survived by eating the seed potatoes for the spring. While we often say that men had to demonstrate ability to provide for their families, some (like my g-g-g-grandfather) were authorized because of their faithfulness.

[jackson20]

Joseph's statement on "seeing God and living" refers to the presence of God.

The first vision was a vision - God is more than capable of withholding some of his glory from our view.

However, having God's physical presence is entirely different as the scriptures show.

 

Absolutely zero contradiction.

 

If there is zero contraitions...why do my neighbors tell me that they were taught and lead to believe that the first vision was  PHYSICAL appearance...not a vision appearanc of God. Found this also from a questioning mormon stating.  "Well, I'm the idiot. It's always been called the "First Vision", but I was very clearly led to believe without question that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove IN PERSON.

Anyone else in my same boat? Were you taught since dirt that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph in their Celestial Bodies of flesh and bone? And now it was just "in vision"?

 

Why does the Mormon Church change extremely important details. It's appearing like a dyke with all these holes that have bandages on it.

 

.

[JLHPROF]

 

If there is zero contraitions...why do my neighbors tell me that they were taught and lead to believe that the first vision was  PHYSICAL appearance...not a vision appearanc of God. Found this also from a questioning mormon stating.  "Well, I'm the idiot. It's always been called the "First Vision", but I was very clearly led to believe without question that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove IN PERSON.

Anyone else in my same boat? Were you taught since dirt that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph in their Celestial Bodies of flesh and bone? And now it was just "in vision"?

 

Why does the Mormon Church change extremely important details. It's appearing like a dyke with all these holes that have bandages on it.

 

.

 

 

Nah...there was only one person in that grove to witness the Savior and Heavenly Father appearing.  Unless Joseph himself ever stated that they were physically present, that he touched or saw them touch anything physically, then anyone who calls it a visitation is the one in error, even if it was a Church leader.

I don't deny the existence of confusion.  I state that there are zero contradictions to the only eyewitness to the event.  The confusion comes from others assumptions.

 

Jos Smith History 1:17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

...

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with

Edited April 15, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rongo]

I have so many questions . It would be great to actually have well thought out responses--- backed by scripture . 

 

Question:...... Joseph Smith stated that without the ordinances and authority of the priesthood "no man" can see the face of God and live (D & C 84:21, 22).  He also said that he saw God in 1820 (Joseph Smith 2:17).  Joseph Smith, however, never received any priesthood until 1829 (D&C 13).  How did he see God and survive?  In which was he in error: his revelation in D & C 84:21, 22 or his experience in the grove? 

 

 

This very question was actually discussed many times in Journal of Discourses (a collection of talks from Mormon general authorities from 1851 to 1886, spanning 26 volumes). Here is a representative response:

 

"Joseph Smith, when he translated these records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, had not yet received any Priesthood, so far as his temporal existence was concerned. But now, do not misunderstand me in regard to this position. He did hold the Priesthood before he came here upon the earth . . .  The reason for my making this observation is to clear up one point which may perhaps trouble the minds of some of the Latter-day Saints.

You have read in the revelation given on the 22d day of September, 1832, that without the Priesthood and the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is not manifested unto men in the flesh. You have also read in that same revelation, that without the ordinances of that Priesthood and the power thereof to administer to the children of men no man could see the face of God the Father and live. When you read this plain saying your minds may have reverted back to the days when there was no Priesthood so far as ordination was concerned . . .

"No man without the Priesthood, can behold the face of the Father and live."

Now, this has troubled the minds of some of the Latter-day Saints. "How is it, (say they) that Joseph lived, after having seen the face of the Father, after having heard the words of His mouth, after the Father had said unto him, 'He is my beloved Son, hear ye him.'"

If you had thought upon this other subject, namely, that Joseph had been already ordained before this world was made . . . and that he was ordained to come forth in this dispensation of the fulness of times to hold the keys of authority and power of that high and holy Priesthood,—that he was ordained to come forth and perform the work that God intended to accomplish in the latter times, then the mystery would have been cleared up to your minds. (Orson Pratt, October 10, 1880. Journal of Discourses 22:28-30)

Edited April 15, 2015 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

If you had thought upon this other subject, namely, that Joseph had been already ordained before this world was made . . . and that he was ordained to come forth in this dispensation of the fulness of times to hold the keys of authority and power of that high and holy Priesthood,—that he was ordained to come forth and perform the work that God intended to accomplish in the latter times, then the mystery would have been cleared up to your minds. (Orson Pratt, October 10, 1880. Journal of Discourses 22:28-30)

 

Another excellent option, although I still prefer the vision, not visitation one.

[rongo]

Another excellent option, although I still prefer the vision, not visitation one.

I prefer the physical visitation option. Although, I acknowledge that the First Vision is not the witness for the corporeality of God (bodies of flesh and bone) that Mormons sometimes use it for (he didn't shake their hands or "handle them and see"). Joseph knew that he saw and heard two personages, and he felt the Spirit.

 

On my mission, my companion (a 26 year-old native Berliner) and I were let in by an old couple. They were striking. They were "Paul worshippers" --- literally memorizing all of the epistles at the expense of everything else. They were neither Lutheran nor Catholic, and weighed everything against the standard of Paul. While teaching the first discussion and teaching about the First Vision, the man said, "Paul wrote that the devil can appear as an angel of light. How can you be sure that this wasn't a manifestation of the devil?"

 

As I thought about how we could respond in a way that might reach them, given their unique Paulicentricism (I was stumped, as a greenie), my companion said, "The Lord appearing to Paul on the road to Damascus. How can we be sure that this wasn't the devil appearing to Paul as an angel of light, claiming to be the Lord?" This stumped them. They sputtered that of course it was the Lord, the Lord wouldn't allow Paul to be deceived like that, etc. But they could anticipate the other side to that coin . . . 

 

We weren't invited back, but it was an interesting experience.

Edited April 15, 2015 by rongo

[jackson20]

I prefer the physical visitation option. Although, I acknowledge that the First Vision is not the witness for the corporeality of God (bodies of flesh and bone) that Mormons sometimes use it for (he didn't shake their hands or "handle them and see"). Joseph knew that he saw and heard two personages, and he felt the Spirit.

 

On my mission, my companion (a 26 year-old native Berliner) and I were let in by an old couple. They were striking. They were "Paul worshippers" --- literally memorizing all of the epistles at the expense of everything else. They were neither Lutheran nor Catholic, and weighed everything against the standard of Paul. While teaching the first discussion and teaching about the First Vision, the man said, "Paul wrote that the devil can appear as an angel of light. How can you be sure that this wasn't a manifestation of the devil?"

 

As I thought about how we could respond in a way that might reach them, given their unique Paulicentricism (I was stumped, as a greenie), my companion said, "The Lord appearing to Paul on the road to Damascus. How can we be sure that this wasn't the devil appearing to Paul as an angel of light, claiming to be the Lord?" This stumped them. They sputtered that of course it was the Lord, the Lord wouldn't allow Paul to be deceived like that, etc. But they could anticipate the other side to that coin . . . 

 

We weren't invited back, but it was an interesting experience.

 

 

Here is a short video that is interesting.  Google " Joseph Smith-The First Vision" youtube

 

[Mystery Meat]

Ok point taken. So how about this.  The United State Government forced the LDS Leaders to give up something they said they never would.

 

Thanks for pointing out things that could be said better.

 

I like you too.

 

Much better. And, for the record, I think it is a fair question. One that I have asked myself before.

[Jeanne]

Ouch..seriously..I was taught that it was real..not a dream or vision but they ascended from the heavens and spoke.  As  a little girl in primary they had huge pictures of the kneeling Joseph ..you mean really they know that it is a vision now..not real?  I must be just an idiot..

[carbon dioxide]

Ouch..seriously..I was taught that it was real..not a dream or vision but they ascended from the heavens and spoke.  As  a little girl in primary they had huge pictures of the kneeling Joseph ..you mean really they know that it is a vision now..not real?  I must be just an idiot..

I guess it depends on the definition of vision.  From dictionary.com

 

2.an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present, often under the influence of a divine or other agency: "

 

or on can choose

 

4. something seen or otherwise perceived during such an experience:

 

6. something seen; an object of sight.

 

Perhaps some might want to change it from the First Vision to the First Hologram