Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[UtahTexan]

So, we've drifted afield here.

 

Any more comments on the thread topic? Does anyone here seriously believe the Church is distancing itself from the Prophet of the Restoration?

 

Nope.

 

Just the opposite

[CCRW]

So, we've drifted afield here.

 

Any more comments on the thread topic? Does anyone here seriously believe the Church is distancing itself from the Prophet of the Restoration?

 

I'd have to go review the England type airport promotions of a year or so back, and I have not seen the movie the church made, and the whole I'm a Mormon type campaign.

 

It would be those numbers that would maybe indicate the church publicy distancing itself for potential converts.  That would seem more interesting than if they are distancing themself from the pulpit to the faithful.

[JLHPROF]

So, we've drifted afield here.

 

Any more comments on the thread topic? Does anyone here seriously believe the Church is distancing itself from the Prophet of the Restoration?

 

No.  I don't believe the Church is.

I do believe many members are choosing to, but not at the Church's instruction or request.

[Senator]

 

Trying to stir the pot, ttribe?

 

Any more than your little huff about Pahoran's banning.......even threatening to leave the board yourself if the banning remained.

 

Wouldn't that be like...............wait for it..............."emotional backmail"?

Edited April 13, 2015 by Senator

[ttribe]

So, we've drifted afield here.

 

Any more comments on the thread topic? Does anyone here seriously believe the Church is distancing itself from the Prophet of the Restoration?

 

Okay, I'll go opposite of Scratch's label for me and talk about the substantive topic - I think the data just reflects normal variability.  I don't see the Church attempting to distance itself from Joseph Smith in any meaningful way.

[JulieM]

I don't think the word "ashamed" is correct when describing what may be taking place. I do think some are struggling with what they've recently learned more about regarding Joseph Smith, his polygamy, peep stones and so on. But unless the trend continues (not speaking much about The Prophet Joseph) at future conferences, I think it's just a fluke and not intentional.

[ALarson]

I think the leaders simply chose to focus on other topics this past general conference.  They would have to tell us why they made this decision. Everything else is just speculation.  And maybe there wasn't even a decision or discussion about it.

 

I agree that the word ashamed is pretty extreme though even if there was an actual decision not to focus or speak on Joseph Smith.  They could have just felt that other topics were more needed for the members right now.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Indeed.

 

And it works both ways.  The Church certainly has not been balance and more slanted and up till now has been able to portray an almost mythical and super humans Joseph.  That is as bad as what rabid critics do.

 

But to the topic of the thread. It is utter nonsense to think the Church is running away from JS.  The LDS Church is not the Community of Christ nor do I think it will ever be.

[rpn]

Haven't read the other posts, but this is a no win thing.  If there are lots of questions or talks about or we sing We thank theee o god or praise to the man, we are deifying the prophets.   If there are few, we are abandoning belief in their divine roles.

 

Seems to me that the most  like reason for the ebb and flow of how many mentions any given prophet has in General Conference has more to do with whether the subjects leaders are inspired to talk about  in general conference where ones where JS's known words are the best quotes to teach the message.    And since there are relatively few proven his words and only his words on things like sabbath or priesthood or loving God or grace or other subjects prophets have recently seen fit to talk about, it would be natural that there would be few references.  

 

I suspect that if the same person who compiled this info about JS also compiled it for BY or any other prophet, those numbers would also have diminished over time as it is modern prophets (okay and CS lewis and Mother Theresa) whose words might be most on point.

[Teancum]

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.

 

Self selected? Dehlin did not select anyone. He put the survey out and the persons who completed it were the ones who selected themselves.

 

Not an accurate statistical sampling I will give you.

 

An accurate read of the 4000 or so who responded it was.   Do you marginalize their responses and not reflecting their personal experiances?

 

You really still despise John Dehlin don't you?  Can't seem to help but say things to continue to taint him even though he has been given the proverbial boot.

[Avatar4321]

You are not likely to find any venue that would agree, it's going to boil down to local level leadership.  All anyone can really do is go by the old saying ... getting forgiveness is easier than permission.

 

In otherwords, you will not know how liberal your ward is, and how strongly leadership might stand up to complaints until the limits are pushed and closed door conversations start.

And why exactly would we be trying to get complaints for our lessons. The purpose of teaching is to edify and uplift one another by the spirit. How is sensationalizing the lessons and trying to draw complaints

[sunstoned]

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.

A your referring to the essays?  What is contained in them is basically the main issues that are brought up by critics.

[CCRW]

And why exactly would we be trying to get complaints for our lessons.

The purpose of teaching is to edify and uplift one another by the spirit. How is sensationalizing the lessons and trying to draw complaints

 

My friend Wayne Phelps certainly was not trying to get complaints and yet was chastised in front of the whole class(http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65220-is-the-church-ashamed-of-the-prophet-joseph-smith/?p=1209484927)

 

The limiting of teaching to strictly edifying and uplifting might want to be rethought unless you want your young men and women introduced to these issues from the world instead of from the Chapel.

 

I did not get the impression that the question was coming from someone who had malicious intent.  My answer certainly left open the possibility of trying to ask upfront, and yet what ... ask the Bishop to vet every lesson?  

 

How about a different analogy ... feed them as much meat as you believe they can take ... if they start to choke ... move it back towards the milk. 

[Russell C McGregor]

Self selected? Dehlin did not select anyone. He put the survey out and the persons who completed it were the ones who selected themselves.

Umm, T? That's actually what "self selected" means.

 

You really still despise John Dehlin don't you?  Can't seem to help but say things to continue to taint him even though he has been given the proverbial boot.

But only Pahoran is mean.

Cheers,

Russell

[sunstoned]

I know Daniel Peterson, and it's definitely not like him to do that.

CFR

[sunstoned]

I'll bet his lessons were not boring though!  I've read some of his posts on other boards and I think I'd love to have him teaching in my ward.  I really believe that many would love to discuss some "new" information on different topics. (New to them.)  

 

Consiglieri also seems like a genuinely nice guy.  Does he ever post here?

He posts over on the 'other' board occasionally. 

[rongo]

 

 

I understand that the typical assignments to speak involve a direct assignment to a given GC talk from the last conference.

 

This leaves no forum where one guided by the spirit could present essay truths, or any other that was not limited to teacher’s guides, prepared printed lesson manuals or Ensign material

I can't stand it when talk topics are GC talks. When I was a bishop, whoever was conducting that week chose the speakers and gave them whatever topics he felt were timely and needed. 

 

If I had a dollar for every time someone said, "Elder Oaks says it so much better than I do, so I'm going to read you his talk . . ."

 

Happily, my current ward does things the same way, so anecdotally, GC talks aren't a "typical assignment." At least in my experience.

[rongo]

Consiglieri is likely a good example of one who would have put much effort into his GD lessons, bringing very interesting and deeper understanding to the various weeking topics.

 

And yet providing just enough external materal to the lesson to make Bishoprics and Stake Presidents nervious enough to remove him from the position.

He's gone completely apostate, hasn't he?

 

Prior to that, he always struck me as a "pot-stirrer," a person who liked to use his lessons to shock the class. I actually didn't care for his numerous "so, this is what happened when I threw [ABC] into the lesson today" anecdotes.

 

I would have gotten rid of him as a teacher a lot faster than his local leaders did. And, I have a local reputation for "exciting, insightful" lessons (the stake presidency is having me teach Gospel Doctrine in the ward conferences this year). "Exciting, insighful" lessons are possible without leaning apostate or "stirring the pot."

[Analytics]

 

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....

 

 

I don't see a trend in the numbers, but I do see two anomalies: October 2005 and April 2014.  Both deserve an explanation.

 

I think you are right about 2005, but what about 2014?

 

I would guess there are two factors.  First, one of the big themes this year is about the importance of traditional marriage.  This of course is driven by the culture wars.  The other factor is that (I would guess) every person who spoke at conference has read the anonymous essay that the church published about polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvoo.  I would guess that at least some of them found it disturbing, despite the best efforts of the author to put a positive spin on it.

 

So when somebody who has recently read these essays is looking for something to say about the importance of traditional marriage, Joseph Smith probably isn't going to be the first person that comes to mind as an example.

[smac97]

Well I can't provide the references for the "negative" responses because my post history doesn't go back that far.

But members have posted objection to my agreement with:

 

1. Joseph Smith will be one of our judges.

2. Anything in the King Follett, particularly anything to do with theosis.

3. Joseph's polyandrous marriages were ok with God.

4. Head of the dispensation gives Joseph unique authority not held by his successors.

Well, let's back up a bit. Here's what you said previously: "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."  (Emphases added.)

With that in mind, let's review your list:

 

"1. Joseph Smith will be one of our judges."

I will clarify my previous CFR and request that you establish that this "was a standard view of the prophet Joseph Smith 100 years ago" and contrast it with what is taught today.  Frankly, I think you are wrong to suggest that this concept is no longer taught in the Church.

 

I have generally seen only a very few quotes about this topic. First, we have this JOD entry from Brigham Young:

 

“Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians … that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ. …

“Should not this thought comfort all people? They will, by-and-by, be … thankful for such a man as Joseph Smith, junior. … It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption” (in Journal of Discourses, 7:289; emphases added).

 

This is likely the most well-known reference on this topic.  This quote was used in a 1994 Ensign/Liahona article.  So it seems odd for you to claim (below) that it was taught 100 years ago, but not today.

 

And then there is this quote attributed to Parley P. Pratt (also from the JOD) (emphases added):

 

I bear this testimony this day, that Joseph Smith was and is a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator—an Apostle holding the keys of this last dispensation and of the kingdom of God, under Peter, James, and John. And not only that he was a Prophet and Apostle of Jesus Christ, and lived and died one, but that he now lives in the spirit world, and holds those same keys to usward and to this whole generation. Also that he will hold those keys to all eternity; and no power in heaven or on the earth will ever take them from him; for he will continue holding those keys through all eternity, and will stand—yes, again in the flesh upon this earth, as the head of the Latter-day Saints under Jesus Christ, and under Peter, James, and John. He will hold the keys to judge the generation to whom he was sent, and will judge my brethren that preside over me; and will judge me, together with the Apostles ordained by the word of the Lord through him and under his administration.

When this is done, those Apostles will judge this generation and the Latter-day Saints; and they will judge them with that judgment which Jesus Christ will give unto them; and they will have the same spirit and the same mind as Jesus Christ, and their judgment will be his judgment, for they will be one.

...

So it will be with brother Joseph, or brother Brigham, or any of the Apostles or Elders that hold a portion of the keys of the Priesthood to this generation; if they hold them faithfully. They will be able to remember and understand all their own doings and all the acts of this generation to whom they are sent; and they will judge them in the name of Jesus Christ. We will be judged by brother Joseph; and he will be judged by Peter, James, and John, and their associates. Brother Brigham, who now presides over us, will hold the keys under brother Joseph; and he and his brethren, who hold the keys with him, or under his direction, will judge the people; for they will hold those keys to all eternity, worlds without end. By those keys they will have to judge this generation; and Peter, James, and John, will hold the keys to preside over, and judge, and direct brother Joseph to all eternity; and Jesus Christ will hold the keys over them and over us, under his Father, to whom be all the glory.

 

We also have Kerry Shirts' website, in which he has compiled a number of useful early LDS resources on this topic, and which cumulatively say pretty much the same things as described above.  Of course, we all know that the JOD, etc. are not definitive sources of LDS doctrine. So is there any guidance in the scriptures about this general topic by which we can measure the foregoing quotes?

 

It appears so. First, let us consider Matthew 19:28 (quoting the Savior speaking about the Twelve):

 

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

This verse is quoted in the Church's "The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles" manual.  It is also quoted in the Church's Doctrine & Covenants Student Manual.  It's also referenced in this video produced by the Church.  These kinda sorta poke some big holes in your "I'm getting dissed by Mormons because I am resurrecting old-and-now-abandoned teachings" claim.

 

And then there's 1 Nephi 12:9-10 (Nephi's discourse with the Angel of the Lord during a vision, speaking of the future role to be played by the Twelve Apostles in Palestine and the Twelve Disciples in the Americas):

 

And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the twelve apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.

And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.

 

 

And then there's Mormon 3:18-19 (Mormon's words to the Gentiles and to the House of Israel):

 

Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem.

And I write also unto the remnant of this people, who shall also be judged by the twelve whom Jesus chose in this land; and they shall be judged by the other twelve whom Jesus chose in the land of Jerusalem.

 

 So coming back to your comment.  You said that you have received "negative response from members on this site for expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago," including that "Joseph Smith will be one of our judges."  Frankly, I suspect you have not received "negative response(s) from members" about this topic.  Or if you have, I suspect you did not characterize the issue as innocuously as "Joseph Smith will be one of our judges."  Joseph Smith as a judge during the winding up scene (as well as many others who will also act as judges, all under the direction of, and in complete adherence to the will of, God) is simply not a remarkable or controversial topic, nor is it one that is out-of-fashion amongst the Saints.  It may not be in the top tier of commonly held bits of doctrinal data amongst the Saints, but I suspect that the vast majority of informed Latter-day Saints, when presented with the above quotes and scriptural references, would not take exception to the notion that "Joseph Smith will be one of our judges."    So overall, color me skeptical about your assertion to the contrary (particularly since you haven't provided any actual examples of these alleged "negative response(s)").

 

Here's the next bit:

"2. Anything in the King Follett, particularly anything to do with theosis."

 

Again I will refine my CFR and request that you provide examples of Latter-day Saints taking exception to the concept of theosis in general, or of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse in particular.  I'm just not persuaded that this is happening.  Check out the following excerpt from the Church's Gospel Principles manual (from Chapter 47, entitled "Exaltation") (emphases added):

 

Exaltation

• What is exaltation?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7).

Blessings of Exaltation

• What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?

Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

 

 

The Gospel Principles manual is used to teach new members the basic tenets and doctrines of the Restored Gospel.  It includes express statements that those of God's children who are faithful will "become exalted," will "become gods," will "have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have."  The Church also has an essay on this topic (the term "theosis" is even referenced in the footnotes).  The 1988 Ensign included an article by Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks which specifically discusses "theosis."  The Church published a news story about the topic of theosis being discussed at a BYU symposium.

 

And yet despite the voluminous materials published by the LDS Church with commentaries about "exaltation" generally and "theosis" specifically, you are claiming that Latter-day Saints on this board have had a "negative" response to this topic when you've brought it up?  Color me skeptical (particularly since you haven't provided any actual examples of these alleged "negative response(s)").

 

Moving on...

 

"3. Joseph's polyandrous marriages were ok with God."

I'd like to see some actual examples of actual "negative response(s)" to you bringing this topic up in the context of "a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago."  This is a sensitive topic, so I am less skeptical about "negative response(s)" to it.  Still, I'd like to see what the LDS folks on this board are actually saying.

 

And finally...

"4. Head of the dispensation gives Joseph unique authority not held by his successors."

Again, I'd like to see some examples of actual "negative response(s)" to you bringing this topic up in the context of "a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago."  I'm not sure what you are talking about here.  

 

All of these were pretty well taught or known and accepted 100 years ago.  Not so today.

I think you are patently, flagrantly wrong as to items 1 and 2.  These are still taught in the Church today.  Regarding items 3 and 4, I'd like to see the context of you bringing it up, and also the responses you have received from Latter-day Saints.  So I'll wait for you to respond to the CFR as clarified above (though I'm not exactly holding my breath).

 

However, I am fully prepared to admit that I have also advocated the occasional belief about Joseph Smith that was NOT standard teaching so I own responsibility for any disagreement in that area.

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 14, 2015 by smac97

[sethpayne]

He's gone completely apostate, hasn't he?

 

Prior to that, he always struck me as a "pot-stirrer," a person who liked to use his lessons to shock the class. I actually didn't care for his numerous "so, this is what happened when I threw [ABC] into the lesson today" anecdotes.

 

I would have gotten rid of him as a teacher a lot faster than his local leaders did. And, I have a local reputation for "exciting, insightful" lessons (the stake presidency is having me teach Gospel Doctrine in the ward conferences this year). "Exciting, insighful" lessons are possible without leaning apostate or "stirring the pot."

 

You are wrong on many points of fact.

[ALarson]

I don't see a trend in the numbers, but I do see two anomalies: October 2005 and April 2014.  Both deserve an explanation.

 

I think you are right about 2005, but what about 2014?

 

I would guess there are two factors.  First, one of the big themes this year is about the importance of traditional marriage.  This of course is driven by the culture wars.  The other factor is that (I would guess) every person who spoke at conference has read the anonymous essay that the church published about polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvoo.  I would guess that at least some of them found it disturbing, despite the best efforts of the author to put a positive spin on it.

 

So when somebody who has recently read these essays is looking for something to say about the importance of traditional marriage, Joseph Smith probably isn't going to be the first person that comes to mind as an example.

This could have been exactly what was going on.  Traditional marriage was one of the themes of many of the talks this last General Conference.  I think one thing most on here can agree with is that Joseph's marriage was not a traditional marriage.  

 

So were the leaders ashamed of Joseph Smith?  I don't think so.

But, did they choose to not combine talking about him along with talking about marriage being between a man and a woman?  Maybe.   

[stemelbow]

There are times and settings for that sort of thing.

 

Take a Church history course if it's that important to you. Read some reliable books or websites.

 

But don't try to monopolize Sabbath day classes by bringing up matters that are peripheral to what they are intended for.

That's what I struggle with, though. To me Church is about getting together to discuss the welfare of our own personal souls with those in our ward family. Instead the Church wishes to control the discourse so no one can speak their minds, for if they do, they'll be branded a heretic of some sort. I've seen it a few times around here, "that's not appropriate in a Church setting". So seriously, we're supposed to pretend everything's cool so we don't upset the bishop or something? Church is all too often about maintaining an "All is well in Zion" world, where we repeat our lessons week after week, year after year, until some of us go near crazy--is this really what we're living for? This surface level, smile in your face to keep up appearances world?

Ugh...I wish we could just speak freely and openly with each other. I know people would worry about crazy things being said, but if ya ask me, those are said, weekly, by the people who pretend.

[Teancum]

Umm, T? That's actually what "self selected" means.

 

Teancum, on 13 Apr 2015 - 9:22 PM, said:

You really still despise John Dehlin don't you?  Can't seem to help but say things to continue to taint him even though he has been given the proverbial boot.

But only Pahoran is mean.

Cheers,

Russell

 

 

On the first point, ok I stand corrected.

 

On the second point how is that mean?  It seems the Scott, you and others do loathe Dehlin.  Disparaging remarks are often still made and someone has coined the term Dehlinite's and it is used as a put down.   As for being given the proverbial boot is that not what happened?  

 

Again what is mean at all about this?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

Any more than your little huff about Pahoran's banning.......even threatening to leave the board yourself if the banning remained.

 

Wouldn't that be like...............wait for it..............."emotional backmail"?

This is not a thread for discussing the banning of Pahoran.