Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[JLHPROF]

Wow, are you ever pedantic...

 

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.)

"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.

 

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)").

 

NEVER suggested this was no longer taught in the Church.  Merely suggested that some members object to the teaching, believing that Christ only will judge.

"A standard view of the prophet Joseph Smith" Quotes on this teaching

 

 

"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. 
 

 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)").
 

 

 

Again, NEVER suggested this was no longer taught in the Church.  Merely suggested that some members object to the teaching.

And I didn't say the objection was to "exaltation", I said it was to the teachings contained in the KFD (and the Snow couplet).

Objections to the KFD doctrines by 2 members - One, Two

 

 

"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.

Then read the threads on polyandry.  Asking me to CFR things on this board that you could easily find yourself is just designed to waste my time so I'll back down.

 

 

"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. 

gfasdf

 

Teachings

One, Two (also a second objection to "Praise to the Man"

 

 

That's the best you are getting.  I don't have time to dig through any more old threads for your CFRs.  If you want to cherry pick any of them apart, go ahead.  Have fun.

Edited April 14, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I agree with this.

 

But I'm put off by use of the term "peep stones." It is a term typically used by anti-Mormons and often conveys hostility and contempt when discussing the matter of Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon and receiving revelation through the Urim and Thummim and through seer stones. It is an irreverent reference to the use of such instruments for receiving revelation as recounted in scripture and as carried forward early in the latter-day dispensation. I should think if you were to say "peep stones" in making a comment in Relief Society or Sunday School class, it would not go over very well.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

What you have described here is what I mean by the term self-selected. That is, the field from which respondents were drawn were Dehlin's own followers. They likely selected themselves as being eager to prove Dehlin's premises; hence the conformity to the talking points.

 

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

 

I just question whether they had global or widespread application. Apparently not, going by Elder Cook's statements in general conference.

 

A deficiency of a self-selected sample is that it cannot be relied upon to reflect a widespread condition.

 

 

 

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.

 

I feel very sorry for him.

 

I wish him well. And the best I can wish for him is that he will have a life-changing experience that brings to him the sort of "mighty change of heart" as described in the scriptures, one that will eventually lead to his exercising faith in God and humble repentance, that he will eventually comply with the conditions set by his disciplinary council, humbly return to the fold and begin to apply his considerable talents and energy to helping build the Kingdom of God.

 

I would rejoice if that were to happen.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I've read enough from critics to know how they select and slant information.

 

And I'm savvy enough to understand the sophistry of doing such a thing and claiming one is only telling the truth.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Well, as long as we are giving "guesses" here, I'll give mine.

 

I would guess that the general conference speakers are not as wet-behind-the-ears as you make them out to be.

 

And I am one who read the essays and didn't find them in the least disturbing. I don't regard myself as anomalous in that respect.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You are wrong on many points of fact.

Actually, Rongo's recollection conforms quite closely with my own.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

I agree with this.

 

But I'm put off by use of the term "peep stones." It is a term typically used by anti-Mormons and often conveys hostility and contempt when discussing the matter of Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon and receiving revelation through the Urim and Thummim and through seer stones. It is an irreverent reference to the use of such instruments for receiving revelation as recounted in scripture and as carried forward early in the latter-day dispensation. I should think if you were to say "peep stones" in making a comment in Relief Society or Sunday School class, it would not go over very well.

I think peep stone and seer stone were both used back in the 1800's to describe what Joseph Smith was using. But either way, bringing up the fact that Joseph Smith used one for treasure hunting AND to translate the Book of Mormon would not be welcomed in our ward's relief society yet.

[JLHPROF]

I think peep stone and seer stone were both used back in the 1800's to describe what Joseph Smith was using. But either way, bringing up the fact that Joseph Smith used one for treasure hunting AND to translate the Book of Mormon would not be welcomed in our ward's relief society yet.

 

That's because there is such a lack of understanding about seer stones and their use to focus the mind.  One of the prophets taught that EVERYONE was entitled to one, and D&C states that those who enter the Celestial Kingdom receive one.  Calling them peep stones is the equivalent of calling garments "magic underwear", regardless of how prevalent the term is.

[smac97]

Wow, are you ever pedantic...

I am directly addressing the specific points you have raised.

 

 

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

NEVER suggested this was no longer taught in the Church.

 

You said (emphasis added):

 

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.

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

 

That sounds like you did say these points were taught in the Church 100 years ago, but not today.

 

Merely suggested that some members object to the teaching, believing that Christ only will judge.

First, that's not all you said.

Second, you have yet to provide any examples to "some members" objecting to this concept.

 

"A standard view of the prophet Joseph Smith" Quotes on this teaching

Okay. I didn't really see "negative responses." But no worries.

 

Again, NEVER suggested this was no longer taught in the Church.  Merely suggested that some members object to the teaching.

Again, yes you did (see above). "All of these were pretty well taught or known and accepted 100 years ago. Not so today."

 

And I didn't say the objection was to "exaltation", I said it was to the teachings contained in the KFD.

You said: "Anything in the King Follett, particularly anything to do with theosis."

 

Objections to the KFD doctrines by 2 members - One, Two

The first link is to a post by StormRider, and is a picture of temperate writing. The second link is a post by Alan about the "Snow couplet," which is noticeably not a part of the KFD.

 

Then read the threads on polyandry.  Asking me to CFR things on this board that you could easily find yourself is just designed to waste my time so I'll back down.

Nah. 

 

Teachings

One, Two (also a second objection to "Praise to the Man"

You have three links here. The first is to a post by ... you. I didn't see any posts talking about or taking exception to the general idea that "Head of the dispensation gives Joseph unique authority not held by his successors."

The second link is the same link you provided to StormRider's post, which again, is a model of temperate writing.

The third link is to a post by StormRider. He was responding to you when you said: "It IS true, we should only worship the Father, not even Christ wanted to be worshipped. So I don't worship Joseph Smith. But I revere him as right beneath the Father and the Son." He responded: "Nope, I don't think we have that dispensation thing all worked out with all the facts known. ... Don't like singing "Praise to the Man" even though I did as a young boy. ... Joseph was an instrument through whom the Church of Jesus Christ was restored - no more and no less. ... I would never mention Joseph Smith, Peter, Moses, or any other prophet in he same way that I talk about or feel about like any member of the Godhead."

It sounds like StormRider was not altogether comfortable with your characterization of Joseph Smith being "right beneath the Father and the Son" in terms of reverence. But this statement seems quite a bit more bold than "Head of the dispensation gives Joseph unique authority not held by his successors."

 

That's the best you are getting.  I don't have time to dig through any more old threads for your CFRs.  If you want to cherry pick any of them apart, go ahead.  Have fun.

Nah. I consider the CFR as being satisfied.

What I find interesting is that I suspect you and I probably have very similar ideas about how the Saints should be given some latitude, some room for interpretation, on doctrinal matters. You and StormRider have varying views on meaningful points of doctrine, but I would like to think that both of you, and myself, would be able to commune in fellowship with each other.

 

I apologize if I have given offense or irritated you.  I will work on being more temperate and circumspect in my remarks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 14, 2015 by smac97

[JulieM]

That's because there is such a lack of understanding about seer stones and their use to focus the mind.  One of the prophets taught that EVERYONE was entitled to one, and D&C states that those who enter the Celestial Kingdom receive one.

Very interesting. I hadn't ever heard that before! Your posts are full of great information, JLHPROF, and you always make me think or want to know more about what you've written. Thank you.

[rongo]

You are wrong on many points of fact.

Oh, yeah? Which ones (since there are "many" of them).

 

He's among the mocking, sneering, derisive crowd now. Or, am I wrong on that point of fact, too?

 

While he claimed to be an edgy GD teacher, his posts reminded me of people who constantly share with Facebook what they made for dinner, or how many jogging miles their app recorded. Really insecure, and seeking for accolades via social media. His took the form of "So, I threw this out in class. Hilarity ensued . . ."

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted, as per my promise.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

 

I do not share your chacterization of him.

But I will leave it at that since this thread is not the place to discuss the banning of consiglieri.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not share your chacterization of him.

But I will leave it at that since this thread is not the place to discuss the banning of consiglieri.

You are right, and to demonstrate my commitment to that, I will remove my post.

 

Whether you want to retain your quotation of it in your post is up to you. I have no control over that.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

What you have described here is what I mean by the term self-selected. That is, the field from which respondents were drawn were Dehlin's own followers. They likely selected themselves as being eager to prove Dehlin's premises; hence the conformity to the talking points.

I just question whether they had global or widespread application. Apparently not, going by Elder Cook's statements in general conference.

 

A deficiency of a self-selected sample is that it cannot be relied upon to reflect a widespread condition.

 

I feel very sorry for him.

 

I wish him well. And the best I can wish for him is that he will have a life-changing experience that brings to him the sort of "mighty change of heart" as described in the scriptures, one that will eventually lead to his exercising faith in God and humble repentance, that he will eventually comply with the conditions set by his disciplinary council, humbly return to the fold and begin to apply his considerable talents and energy to helping build the Kingdom of God.

 

I would rejoice if that were to happen.

 

 

1:  Yes I concede point 1 on the self selected comment.  And I did say it was not a valid statistical sampling.

 

2:  Even if self selected the 4000 or so respondents have real life experiences and for them their comments are valid. Elder Cook's comments have no negations on why THEY are disaffected and how THEY view their church experiences.  On the other hand everyone is subject to confirmation bias, you and other believers as well. And me.....

 

3:  I will take your word that you are sorry for Mr. Dehlin.   However I am sure he does not want your sympathy.  I don't and would not. I may have sympathy for you and your view that seems overwhelmed by religious dogma.  He or I may feel bad that you cannot seem to cast off the shackles of dogma.  It is the same thing really, the other side of the coin so to speak.

[Scott Lloyd]

1:  Yes I concede point 1 on the self selected comment.  And I did say it was not a valid statistical sampling.

 

2:  Even if self selected the 4000 or so respondents have real life experiences and for them their comments are valid. Elder Cook's comments have no negations on why THEY are disaffected and how THEY view their church experiences.  On the other hand everyone is subject to confirmation bias, you and other believers as well. And me.....

 

3:  I will take your word that you are sorry for Mr. Dehlin.   However I am sure he does not want your sympathy.  I don't and would not. I may have sympathy for you and your view that seems overwhelmed by religious dogma.  He or I may feel bad that you cannot seem to cast off the shackles of dogma.  It is the same thing really, the other side of the coin so to speak.

I don't need someone's permission to feel sorry for him. Nor do I need his permission to wish for him the best -- up to and including an Alma the Younger type of experience if that's what it takes for a change of heart.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Just a reminder here of the possible explanation that Daniel Peterson suggested:

 

And it’s probably not insignificant, over at the right side of the graph, that the most recent General Conference of the Church fell on Easter weekend.  Jesus tends to be mentioned quite a bit at Easter.

 

 

[why me]

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."

I have known him on the boards for quite a few years. He was a star on this board at one time. He stated many threads with the words 'bulls eye' when speaking about how the gospel is true and proving it. Then he was let go as sunday school teacher and he thought that he shouldn't have been and then he began to go off the deep end. I think that the class did not appreciate the 'shock therapy'  type lesson that he began to adopt. Maybe he was teaching the high priests or something like that.

 

But this can happen to the best of us.

Edited April 14, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I have known him on the boards for quite a few years. He was a star on this board at one time. He stated many threads with the words 'bulls eye' when speaking about how the gospel is true and proving it. Then he was let go as sunday school teacher and he thought that he shouldn't have been and then he began to go off the deep end. I think that the class did not appreciate the 'shock therapy'  type lesson that he began to adopt. Maybe he was teaching the high priests or something like that.

 

But this can happen to the best of us.

I have been reminded by Senator that this thread is not about consiglieri.

[why me]

The church will never distance itself from Joseph Smith. However, depending on the needs of the membership, they may stress him less in talks etc. These days there are so many problems facing the saints that I am sure that there are more important topics to be listened to and discussed besides Joseph Smith.

[Senator]

 

You are right, and to demonstrate my commitment to that, I will remove my post.

 

Whether you want to retain your quotation of it in your post is up to you. I have no control over that.

 

Done

Edited April 14, 2015 by Senator

[why me]

I have been reminded by Senator that this thread is not about consiglieri.

I had to defend him a little. It is a natural human reaction.

[Scott Lloyd]

The church will never distance itself from Joseph Smith. However, depending on the needs of the membership, they may stress him less in talks etc. These days there are so many problems facing the saints that I am sure that there are more important topics to be listened to and discussed besides Joseph Smith.

Um, as lesson and talk topics go, there aren't many more transcendently important than the prophetic role and mission of Joseph Smith.

 

And as the trend to disparage him continues, that importance will increase, not decrease, over time.

[ALarson]

 

Just a reminder here of the possible explanation that Daniel Peterson suggested:

 

Quote

And it’s probably not insignificant, over at the right side of the graph, that the most recent General Conference of the Church fell on Easter weekend.  Jesus tends to be mentioned quite a bit at Easter.

 

I would imagine that other April conferences included in the numbers may have also fallen on Easter weekends (?).   That would be the most accurate way to compare.

Edited April 14, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

The church will never distance itself from Joseph Smith. However, depending on the needs of the membership, they may stress him less in talks etc. These days there are so many problems facing the saints that I am sure that there are more important topics to be listened to and discussed besides Joseph Smith.

 

More important than a rehash of his life and the first vision/getting the plates etc?  Sure.

More important than the doctrines and ordinances he restored?  Virtually nothing but the atonement.