Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[rongo]

I do see, though, a de-emphasis on things like the KFD/Sermon in the Grove. To the point where the majority of members have no idea what it is when asked. BYU used to sell pamphlet forms of the KFD in the bookstore (the covers looked like the old Joseph Smith testimony pamphlets).

 

I had a missionary in my old ward ask me if we still taught it (the lesson at the time was in the Joseph Smith manual, and covered the KFD). He specifically asked in light of President Hinckley's three-times de-emphasis of it. I told him of course we do, and showed him the chapter. He asked why President Hinckley said those things, and I told him that it is hard answering things like that in interviews, in a soundbite environment --- especially interviews that may be edited and packaged as soundbites. I've done some radio shows on Mormonism with pastors, and I have a respect for how well President Hinckley did under those circumstances --- circumstances that armchair quarterbacks can't begin to relate to or understand.

 

That said, President Hinckley's treatment of the KFD (specifically, the Snow couplet) does have the appearance of dissembling or disingenuousness --- or at least, being overly-tied to PR and legalese considerations. What the missionary was hoping for was a confirmation that we do teach these things, and that they haven't been tossed overboard. 

 

I see the gospel topics essays in this same light. They are trying to thread the needle of a) dealing with tough issues, b) leaving options open, and c) having deniability (anonymity, no overt Brethren involvement, etc.). I wish that the Brethren would deal directly with them, even if some problems arise because of this. While it makes sense in today's hypercritical liability climate, I think sometimes we are overly-cautious and timid about "just answering" certain things.

Edited April 14, 2015 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Perhaps.

 

But Daniel was not saying it was THE determining factor. He only said it was "not insignificant."

 

I was reminded very recently that general conference talks are assigned -- not by any of the Brethren, but by Him Whose Church this is through divine inspiration.

 

So it might just be a simple matter of other things needing more emphasis at this time according to the mind of God.

 

Of course, disbelievers and unbelievers aren't going to accept that; rather they will search, probably in vain, for some kind of organic explanation.

 

Meanwhile, the Prophet Joseph Smith will continue to be held in high esteem in the Church of Jesus Christ as the one who, save Jesus only, has done more for the salvation of the world than any other person who ever lived in it.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

Very few things can be more important than those.

[JLHPROF]

Very few things can be more important than those.

 

I both agree and disagree.  The "origins" of Mormonism are conversion stories.  If Joseph thought we spent all our time revisiting his youth instead of studying the revelations and teachings he gave he'd probably be very disappointed.

He wanted us to be a Holy Order focused in the temple, not stuck in the early protestant origins of pre-Elijah Mormonism.

[Scott Lloyd]

I both agree and disagree.  The "origins" of Mormonism are conversion stories.  If Joseph thought we spent all our time revisiting his youth instead of studying the revelations and teachings he gave he'd probably be very disappointed.

He wanted us to be a Holy Order focused in the temple, not stuck in the early protestant origins of pre-Elijah Mormonism.

There is evidence that Joseph grew and matured greatly in his understanding during his lifetime.

 

While he kept his First Vision experience "close to the vest," as it were, in the beginning, he eventually came to understand its importance enough that he wrote -- or caused to be written -- an official account of it to publish to the world, one that eventually would be canonized in sacred scripture.

 

While the Community of Christ is perhaps an illustration of how things would be were we to lessen our regard and appreciation for the Prophet (see the analysis here, for example), we cannot and must not let that happen in the Church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith's divinely appointed role and calling is ingrained within the very fiber of the Church, so much so that it would cease to be the Church if we were to lose that.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

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.

Hey Scott, what's the trend you speak of? I'm curious if you are seeing a trend in print? or is this anecdotal?

[Senator]

Meanwhile, the Prophet Joseph Smith will continue to be held in high esteem in the Church of Jesus Christ as the one who, save Jesus only, has done more for the salvation of the world than any other person who ever lived in it.

At the risk of being thrown into the pit amongst Joseph haters and Prophet deniers, I will state that I have always felt a little uncomfotable with this seemingly overzealous declaration of the Prophet Joseph. I can't help but think that Joseph himself would be uncomfortable with this adoration, given the things he said about himself.

I have a great respect for the man and his mission, and he does deserve honor and respect. But I don't know why we feel the need to prioritize greatness.

Personally, if I was complelled to proclaim the greatests of all mankind, I would put Adam (and maybe moreso, Eve), then followed by Abraham and Noah.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Senator

[JLHPROF]

Hey Scott, what's the trend you speak of? I'm curious if you are seeing a trend in print? or is this anecdotal?

 

Google "Joseph Smith" AND "young girls" or "other men's wives" and see how many blog posts pop up and how many are written by members, not anti groups.

 

Admittedly, many of them appear to be members who have gone inactive etc., but still...

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey Scott, what's the trend you speak of? I'm curious if you are seeing a trend in print? or is this anecdotal?

Purely observational, and I haven't made any written records.

 

Perhaps it comes from spending too much time among the unbelievers on this board.

[Jeanne]

I think there are many things the church is doing to mainstream.  Calling ourselves Christians.  Explaining Grace much differently word wise than before, this year!  Playing down our being Gods and having our own planets, or theosis.  A cross on the Paris temple perhaps, door I believe, and church publications showing crosses.  Probably a lot more than these, I'll come back and edit when I think of more, or if I think of more.  

 

Scott, I believe that guy's predictions came in time.  But I wonder now, with so many having difficulty with church essay's and secularism, if the church will switch back to being more fundamental.  It might just have to.  Because if it becomes too mainstream the conservatives will probably leave.  And I think that's a bigger threat.       

I agree with your thoughts Tacenda..but where does this place the value of truth?   A unique people who understands a dispensation and fullness?

[JLHPROF]

Personally, if I was complelled to proclaim the greatests of all mankind, I would put Adam

 

Me too, but for very different reasons. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Google "Joseph Smith" AND "young girls" or "other men's wives" and see how many blog posts pop up and how many are written by members, not anti groups.

 

Admittedly, many of them appear to be members who have gone inactive etc., but still...

Good point.

 

What JLHPROF said.

[Scott Lloyd]

At the risk of being thrown into the pit amongst Joseph haters and Prophet deniers, I will state that I have always felt a little uncomfotable with this seemingly overzealous declaration of the Prophet Joseph. I can't help but think that Joseph himself would be uncomfortable with this adoration, given the things he said about himself.

 

Think what you will, but you are talking about canonized scripture.

 

I have a great respect for the man and his mission, and he does deserve honor and respect. But I don't know why we feel the need to prioritize greatness.

Personally, if I was complelled to proclaim the greatests of all mankind, I would put Adam (and maybe moreso, Eve), then followed by Abraham and Noah.

 

I don't think I can do better than what is contained in Doctrine and Covenants 135 (which I have already alluded to) in giving reasons why I firmly believe what is said therein about Joseph's greatness. And again, that is not just opinion; it carries scriptural authority.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Google "Joseph Smith" AND "young girls" or "other men's wives" and see how many blog posts pop up and how many are written by members, not anti groups.

 

Admittedly, many of them appear to be members who have gone inactive etc., but still...

Those bloggers. I can see that. Ever since the essays on polygamy have come out, people have been blogging about them. And, even if the church is stronger than ever, I still think that issues like polygamy, and other's related to Joseph Smith (oh like the translation issues) and subsequently, at least for many people, these things being known more generally among the membership, or accessible, has caused questioning and disassociation with the Church.

I think that's the problem with some of this though, at least for some. Most of the things that are troubling and causing a growing trend of speaking ill of Joseph are based on either actual things in his life or reasonable assessments of the historic data. Thus, it's kinda hard to disparage if you speak truth, though.

[stemelbow]

Purely observational, and I haven't made any written records.

 

Perhaps it comes from spending too much time among the unbelievers on this board.

And what you call disparage some might see as speaking about historic events.

[Senator]

Think what you will, but you are talking about canonized scripture.

 

I don't think I can do better than what is contained in Doctrine and Covenants 135 (which I have already alluded to) in giving reasons why I firmly believe what is said therein about Joseph's greatness. And again, that is not just opinion; it carries scriptural authority.

I know that.

Then again, I don't hold all of the Canon as the immutable mind, and will of God.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know that.

Then again, I don't hold all of the Canon as the immutable mind, and will of God.

The latter-day revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants I do.

[Senator]

The latter-day revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants I do.

Ok

I'm not trying to deny you of anything.

Just expressing my feelings on the subject.

[Scott Lloyd]

And what you call disparage some might see as speaking about historic events.

What I have been at pains to get across to people for a long time, and more particularly today as we've discussed these matters, is that a limited understanding of facially factual information can be just as false as an overt lie if it is not accompanied by contextual, clarifying information and perspective.

 

I keep seeing reference made to people whose faith has been shaken by exposure to the essays. To the extent that's the only thing shaking their faith (and I would question whether that's true), I would submit that they are jumping ship too soon.

 

Again, I can read the essays and not have a moment's worry over them. What's the difference between them and me? The only thing I can come up with is that perhaps I have a better view of the big picture than do they.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

And what you call disparage some might see as speaking about historic events.

This.  However, many members don't seem to really care much about what took place during the history of the church.  They are able to learn about some of the difficult issues and simply shrug and say they don't care.

 

(I see that Scott Lloyd has posted something similar while I'm typing this.  However, I disagree with his reasoning as I believe some just want to see what the church is today and be a part of that and still believe.)

[ALarson]

I keep seeing reference made to people whose faith has been shaken by exposure to the essays. To the extent that's the only thing shaking their faith (and I would question whether that's true),

Well, I know of a few who have had their faith shaken from only their exposure to the essays.  As I've posted a few times, we ended up with a small group that started discussing the essays as they came out (we even had a member of the bishopric join in).  Nothing formal, but something we'd just discuss.  Several of them had not ever heard of many of the facts discussed in the essays and a few do not attend because of it now.  I hope they'll be back.  A few others have been shaken by what is in the essays, but still attend and believe.  So just because they haven't affected you, please don't assume they haven't been upsetting to some people in the church.

Edited April 14, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

What I have been at pains to get across to people for a long time, and more particularly today as we've discussed these matters, is that a limited understanding of facially factual information can be just as false as an overt lie if it is not accompanied by contextual, clarifying information and perspective.

 

I keep seeing reference made to people whose faith has been shaken by exposure to the essays. To the extent that's the only thing shaking their faith (and I would question whether that's true), I would submit that they are jumping ship too soon.

 

Again, I can read the essays and not have a moment's worry over them. What's the difference between them and me? The only thing I can come up with is that perhaps I have a better view of the big picture than do they.

Could be. Could be that they simply don't want to stand for the notion of a prophet taking advantage of his position and other people.

When I was a boy after church one day, my dad, feeling the over-the-top tributing to Joseph needed some balance, sat me down and told me how human Joseph was, which among other things included the stories that give the impression that he would take advantage of his authority and power at the expense of others. I'm glad he did. I'm glad, with that, he also acknowledged his own reverence for Joseph as a prophet. It taught me at a young age that prophets are fallible, and as could be the case, as fallible as any of us. And if I were to accept him as a prophet I was going to have to learn to accept that prophets have made and will make mistakes, sometimes obvious ones--sometimes mistakes that will confuse and disillusion people.

I figure most people are trying their best, which includes people who leave. I figure they too have their own journeys and life and if they leave for historic reasons, like some of which is included in the recent essays, they are doing so with genuine intent. God knows their heart and I always assume that even they can be directed by God in their journey, which I never consider ending at their departure from the Church.

If any of that makes sense...

[Scott Lloyd]

Could be. Could be that they simply don't want to stand for the notion of a prophet taking advantage of his position and other people.

 

If that's what they think, then I see it as a case in point of what I'm talking about when I say that people jump to conclusions too soon without gaining a proper perspective.

[Teancum]

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.

 

Deleted original post because it is just not worth it..........

Edited April 14, 2015 by Teancum

[JLHPROF]

Most of the things that are troubling and causing a growing trend of speaking ill of Joseph are based on either actual things in his life or reasonable assessments of the historic data. Thus, it's kinda hard to disparage if you speak truth, though.

 

Not at all, if those truths are taken with bias, or out of context, or without an understanding of the religious principles.  It becomes very easy to disparage based on a personal opinion of a true fact.