Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.)

That may be OK for now. But sooner or later, they'll have to face the fact that history makes the Church of Jesus Christ what it is.

 

I'm reminded of a statement from President Heber J. Grant:

 

I’ve met hundreds of men who say “If it wasn’t for Joseph Smith, I could accept your religion.” Any man that doesn’t believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet of the true and the living God has no right to be in this Church. The foundation stone! If he did not have that interview with God and Jesus Christ, the whole Mormon fabric is a failure; it’s a fraud; it isn’t worth anything on earth. But God did come; God did introduce his Son; God did inspire that man to organize the Church of Jesus Christ; and all the opposition of the world is not able to withstand the truth; it is flourishing, it is growing, and it will grow more. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt of the divinity of this work in which we are engaged. It is one of the joys of my life at home and abroad, in private and in public, to testify that I know as well as I know that I live that God lives, that he hears and answers our prayers. He’s heard and answered mine from childhood until the present day. He heard and answered the prayers of that beloved mother of mine. Under the inspiration of the living God, she planted in my heart a love of truth, a love of God, a love of the Prophet Joseph.

 

[ALarson]

That may be OK for now. But sooner or later, they'll have to face the fact that history makes the Church of Jesus Christ what it is.

If you're referring to the Mormon church, we agree and you will have to do the same.

[Russell C McGregor]

I think there are many things the church is doing to mainstream.  Calling ourselves Christians.

Always have.

The claim that we've ever denied being Christians is false and untenable. The most that can be said in that direction is that we just haven't talked about it much.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. Water is wet. Mormons are Christians.

When we are looking at rather obvious truisms, there's not really much to talk about, is there?

Explaining Grace much differently word wise than before, this year!

"Differently" how?

Playing down our being Gods and having our own planets, or theosis.

I confess I've never heard the "having our own planets" thing from any LDS sources.

But the notion that we are "playing down" the doctrine of Exaltation is, frankly, bizarre.

A cross on the Paris temple perhaps, door I believe,

It's the Rome Temple door, and I'm not convinced that it's a cross. You can see for yourself if you go here:

http://mormontemples.org/eng/rome/temple-details

Play the video, and you'll see the supposed cross at about the 1:54 mark. It's a panelled double door, so when it opens, the "cross" will be split in half. And besides, it looks like there are six panels, not just four.

and church publications showing crosses.

In what context? As long as I've been alive, Church artwork has shown Crucifixion scenes, so that would hardly be anything new.

Regards,

Russell

[Coreyb]

I prefer to answer the question posed in the threads title rather than talk about a little graph based on rather limited data.

My answer would be yes and no. I don't think the LDS church (by that I presume we are speaking collectively about those who create and regulate the new rhetoric and literature that is officially distributed across the mormon world from Salt Lake City) is necessarily ashamed or embarrassed about Joseph Smith. The manuals are still brim with Joseph Smiths image and our canon is still full of Joseph Smith material. As far as I am aware the fist standard missionary lesson climaxes in the story of Joseph's first vision. That said, the Joseph Smith that the official texts proclaim is but a simple caricature of Joseph Smith Jr. the historical actor born in 1805. That is the Joseph that the official text producers are, in my view, perhaps not ashamed, but embarressed by and wary of. The image of Joseph Smith has been fashioned to suit the current needs of the institutional church by championing those aspects of the historical Joseph's life and teaching that correlate well with the current official values of the church, and disregarding those aspects of his life and teachings that do not correlate well. This is not some insidious thing. This is what all organizations tend to do with important historical figures. It is very human. Individuals, you and I, do this with Joseph Smith no matter where we fall on the spectrum of opinions about him. I find it understandable and pragmatic, yet unfortunate and unfair. I tend to agree with Mike Quinn, that such an approach robs the historical actor of their humanity, but that's just idealistic nonsense.

[Analytics]

 

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.

 

 

 

To test this hypothesis, we can look at other general conferences that fell on Easter Sunday.  Does talking about Jesus in celebration of Easter falling on G.C. weekend squeeze out mention of Joseph Smith to the extent that he is only mentioned about 5 times?

 

I believe the Spring 2010 General Conference was the last Easter Sunday.  That year there were 27 mentions of Joseph Smith, well within the range of 21-41 that has been the norm.

 

Easter doesn't explain it.

[rongo]

To test this hypothesis, we can look at other general conferences that fell on Easter Sunday.  Does talking about Jesus in celebration of Easter falling on G.C. weekend squeeze out mention of Joseph Smith to the extent that he is only mentioned about 5 times?

 

I believe the Spring 2010 General Conference was the last Easter Sunday.  That year there were 27 mentions of Joseph Smith, well within the range of 21-41 that has been the norm.

 

Easter doesn't explain it.

So, what is your answer, Analytics? That the Brethren were consciously avoiding mention of Joseph Smith?

 

I, too, think that this is simply a matter of Joseph Smith not being germane (as a reference or source) to the particular focus of this conference: the principles of the Proclamation on the Family. 

 

Or a sub-topic: weaning ourselves of electronics addiction (mentioned at least three times). The other sub-topics also didn't happen to match up well with direct reference to Joseph Smith.

 

I really think that it is as simple as this conference being an outlier with respect to references to Joseph Smith, for reasons having nothing to do with seeking to avoid or consciously mention Joseph Smith.

[Russell C McGregor]

To test this hypothesis, we can look at other general conferences that fell on Easter Sunday.  Does talking about Jesus in celebration of Easter falling on G.C. weekend squeeze out mention of Joseph Smith to the extent that he is only mentioned about 5 times?

 

I believe the Spring 2010 General Conference was the last Easter Sunday.  That year there were 27 mentions of Joseph Smith, well within the range of 21-41 that has been the norm.

 

Easter doesn't explain it.

Actually a single outlier doesn't need a whole lot of explaining. It just is. Such things occur.

Regards,

Russell

[Scott Lloyd]

If you're referring to the Mormon church, we agree and you will have to do the same.

Well I'm quite comfortable with our history and the fact that ours is a narrative theology whereby we learn from stories of God's dealings with His children.

But I don't call it "the Mormon church." It is not the church of Mormon. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. That is why the Brethren have asked that we call it that in obedience to the commandment of Christ Himself.

When you say "we agree," who is we? Are you a king, an editorial board or a delegation?

[Scott Lloyd]

I prefer to answer the question posed in the threads title rather than talk about a little graph based on rather limited data.

My answer would be yes and no. I don't think the LDS church (by that I presume we are speaking collectively about those who create and regulate the new rhetoric and literature that is officially distributed across the mormon world from Salt Lake City) is necessarily ashamed or embarrassed about Joseph Smith. The manuals are still brim with Joseph Smiths image and our canon is still full of Joseph Smith material. As far as I am aware the fist standard missionary lesson climaxes in the story of Joseph's first vision. That said, the Joseph Smith that the official texts proclaim is but a simple caricature of Joseph Smith Jr. the historical actor born in 1805. That is the Joseph that the official text producers are, in my view, perhaps not ashamed, but embarressed by and wary of. The image of Joseph Smith has been fashioned to suit the current needs of the institutional church by championing those aspects of the historical Joseph's life and teaching that correlate well with the current official values of the church, and disregarding those aspects of his life and teachings that do not correlate well. This is not some insidious thing. This is what all organizations tend to do with important historical figures. It is very human. Individuals, you and I, do this with Joseph Smith no matter where we fall on the spectrum of opinions about him. I find it understandable and pragmatic, yet unfortunate and unfair. I tend to agree with Mike Quinn, that such an approach robs the historical actor of their humanity, but that's just idealistic nonsense.

It could be argued that those producing the most outlandish caricatures are those who hate him, not those who love him.

We live in a day of greater access to information about Joseph Smith than ever before, yet there is no compelling reason to conclude he was not a man of greatness and honor.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

Actually a single outlier doesn't need a whole lot of explaining. It just is. Such things occur.

Regards,

Russell

 

Outliers do in fact happen, but from my experience they are caused by something.

 

So, what is your answer, Analytics? That the Brethren were consciously avoiding mention of Joseph Smith?

 

 

No, I doubt it was a conscious decision.  This is just speculation of course, but I think it has something to do with the current emphasis on "traditional marriage," along with a heightened general awareness that Joseph Smith wasn't a very good example of the marriage ideal the church now promotes.

[Coreyb]

It could be argued that those producing the most outlandish caricatures are those who hate him, not those who love him.We live in a day of greater acres to information about Joseph Smith than ever before, yet there is no compelling reason to conclude he was not a man of greatness and honor.

I think I agree with both of your assertions there

[Russell C McGregor]

Outliers do in fact happen, but from my experience they are caused by something.

Actually when the outlier is derived from a set of independently produced texts, it need not be caused by anything.

Nobody needs to go leaping to any conclusions about this outlier until they see if it represents a trend.

Actually there is nothing new under the anti-Mormon sun. I remember reading a few years back where someone thought the Church was "Ashamed of Joseph" (that was the title of the article) just because a missionary on Temple Square didn't say what the anti-Mormon "mole" expected her to say.

This is no different. 

No, I doubt it was a conscious decision.  This is just speculation of course, but I think it has something to do with the current emphasis on "traditional marriage," along with a heightened general awareness that Joseph Smith wasn't a very good example of the marriage ideal the church now promotes.

I think I remember seeing a straw man very similar to this on an anti-Mormon propaganda site, back in the days of the California DOMA.

Like I said, there is nothing new under the anti-Mormon sun.

Your speculation appears to rest upon a number of assumptions, which the brethren do not share.

Regards,

Russell

[Analytics]

Actually when the outlier is derived from a set of independently produced texts, it need not be caused by anything.

Nobody needs to go leaping to any conclusions about this outlier until they see if it represents a trend.

Actually there is nothing new under the anti-Mormon sun. I remember reading a few years back where someone thought the Church was "Ashamed of Joseph" (that was the title of the article) just because a missionary on Temple Square didn't say what the anti-Mormon "mole" expected her to say.

This is no different....

 

Since you are in a reminiscing mood, didn't you used to be a fan of word prints?  

 

Using basic statistical reasoning, one could argue that the anomaly is  just due to chance.  Sometimes speakers mention Joseph Smith and sometimes they don't--speaker's choice.  What each speaker chooses is independent of what other speakers choose and isn't driven by external factors.  Because of this random process, some conferences will have more or fewer references to Brother Joseph than others.

 

That is your hypothesis, right?

 

To test it, we would argue from the Central Limit Theorem that the number of times Joseph Smith's name is mentioned is approximately normally distributed.  From the previous data, we see that this normal distribution has a mean of 29.6 and a standard deviation of 6.9.  Given this mean and standard deviation, the probability of Joseph's name being mentioned 4 or fewer times is about 0.000096.  In other words, there was about a 1 in 10,000 chance this anomaly was due merely to chance.

 

Because this is such a low probability, your hypothesis can be rejected with a lot of confidence.  That is why I say that something must have caused this.  That's because it is extremely unlikely that this was due merely to chance.

 

If the next several conferences have really low counts, then sure, there is a trend.  If not, this is an anomaly that in all likelihood was caused by something other than chance.

 

Personally, I think this is an anomaly not a trend.  But just as the 2005 anomaly had an explanation, the 2015 anomaly has one too.  We might not know what it is, but that doesn't mean there isn't something that caused it.

 

But what any of this has to do with antimormonism, I have no idea.  

Edited April 15, 2015 by Analytics

[ALarson]

When you say "we agree," who is we? Are you a king, an editorial board or a delegation?

lol  

 

No, usually when you're having an interaction with someone (on here or in person) and one of them says something and the other one says "yes, we agree", it's obvious that they mean "you and I agree".  But I'll remember that you need things spelled out more clearly in the future 

Edited April 15, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

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.

On that, any perceived negative that someone might view in another is really not a negative at all. It is only because the judger does not have a proper perspective.

I would say it's fine if people disagree on something like whether Joseph ever took advantage of position and authority. But I would also say, if he ever did, even once, it only shows he's human. As it is, it should be expected that anyone who has been given some sort of power and authority will at some time take advantage of that position, and perhaps in doing so may hurt another.

What we ought to be able to realize, though, is Joseph wasn't perfect and was subject to error just like the rest of us. We should indeed be able to identify where he lost his temper, or where he exercised unrighteous dominion without having to be concerned that another thinks we are speaking ill of the man. Realizing he was not extra-human greater than everyone else, most loved and blessed by God beyond all others, isn't going to help.

[ALarson]

What we ought to be able to realize, though, is Joseph wasn't perfect and was subject to error just like the rest of us. We should indeed be able to identify where he lost his temper, or where he exercised unrighteous dominion without having to be concerned that another thinks we are speaking ill of the man. Realizing he was not extra-human greater than everyone else, most loved and blessed by God beyond all others, isn't going to help.

I agree.  It's not either love him or hate him as some seem to believe.  I think that the life of Joseph Smith is a fascinating study and I believe he was a brilliant man.  However, he wasn't perfect and I do believe that he took advantage of his power and position especially in his later years.  

 

That he was human and made mistakes is something the members will and are learning more about from reading the essays.  This is a good thing.  I've even heard other members say that it gives them hope to learn that he wasn't perfect and that he also had things that he needed to repent of (as we all do).  

 

The topics regarding Joseph Smith that seem to be most upsetting to members who've read the essays (from my experience and my discussions with ward members) are that he married teenagers, that he married other men's wives (men who were active in the church and worthy to be sealed to their legal wives themselves), along with learning that he used his seer stone in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon (which has not been depicted in the church art they've seen).

 

The feelings of members over learning details about Joseph's polygamy and polyandry could be why the leaders didn't speak much about him in a General Conference where traditional marriage was a strong theme.   Again, only the leaders would know why they didn't mention Joseph Smith much during this last conference.

[Scott Lloyd]

lol  

 

No, usually when you're having an interaction with someone (on here or in person) and one of them says something and the other one says "yes, we agree", it's obvious that they mean "you and I agree". 

Got it.

 

That's an instance of what in communications theory is called bypassing.

 

But I'll remember that you need things spelled out more clearly in the future 

 

Your meaning is obvious to me now. But if you read back over your sentence, you'll have to admit there was some ambiguity there.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Your meaning is obvious to me now. But if you read back over your sentence, you'll have to admit there was some ambiguity there.

Yes, I can see that too.  

[Scott Lloyd]

On that, any perceived negative that someone might view in another is really not a negative at all. It is only because the judger does not have a proper perspective.

I would say it's fine if people disagree on something like whether Joseph ever took advantage of position and authority. But I would also say, if he ever did, even once, it only shows he's human. As it is, it should be expected that anyone who has been given some sort of power and authority will at some time take advantage of that position, and perhaps in doing so may hurt another.

What we ought to be able to realize, though, is Joseph wasn't perfect and was subject to error just like the rest of us. We should indeed be able to identify where he lost his temper, or where he exercised unrighteous dominion without having to be concerned that another thinks we are speaking ill of the man. Realizing he was not extra-human greater than everyone else, most loved and blessed by God beyond all others, isn't going to help.

I've never heard or seen any defender of the Church of Jesus Christ or any faithful member ever claim perfection on the part of Joseph Smith. Never. Not once.

 

But as it happens, in my review of the sermons given at the recent general conference, I was just this morning going back over the talk given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. He spoke on the parable of the sower and discussed those illustrated by the portion of the parable wherein the seed falls in stony ground and does not take root or does not have deep enough roots to survive. I immediately thought of those who, based on limited knowledge and understanding, are too quick to accuse the Prophet Joseph Smith of wrongdoing. This is what Elder Oaks said:

 

Another potential destroyer of spiritual roots -- accelerated by current technology but not unique to it -- is the keyhole view of the gospel or the Church. This limited view focuses on a particular doctrine or practice or perceived deficiency in a leader and ignores the grand panorama of the gospel plan and the personal and communal fruits of its harvest. ... To be securely rooted in the gospel, we must be moderate and measured in criticism and seek always for the broader view of the majestic work of God.

 

"The keyhole view of the gospel or the Church" -- what an apt characterization! I must remember that one.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I've never heard or seen any defender of the Church of Jesus Christ or any faithful member ever claim perfection on the part of Joseph Smith. Never. Not once.

 

But as it happens, in my review of the sermons given at the recent general conference, I was just this morning going back over the talk given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. He spoke on the parable of the sower and discussed those illustrated by the portion of the parable wherein the seed falls in stony ground and has not root. I immediately thought of those who, based on limited knowledge and understanding, are too quick to accuse the Prophet Joseph Smith of wrongdoing.

Then let's at least say you are sending out a mixed message. here you accuse anyone who says Joseph did something wrong, thus was not perfect, are those who have cultivated a stony place wherein their seeds have fallen upon. So did Joseph do something wrong (was not perfect), or are those who think Joseph did something wrong (you know those who have never, not once, thought Joseph was perfect) those who have cultivated stony ground for their seeds?

This is what Elder Oaks said:

 

"The keyhole view of the gospel or the Church" -- what an apt characterization! I must remember that one.

That was awesome that Elder Oaks supports criticism--moderate and measured. Sometimes, ti seems, Church leaders learn from others.

[Jeanne]

What is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to do now??  There are some questions about Joseph Smith and so one does see that changes are seemingly to be more mainstream in the way of trying to take the church back to the teachings of Christ while still attributing a restoration to Joseph Smith.  I don't envy the church in their quest to maintain an equal stance to the gospel prophets and revelation.  Why not just be called the Mormons..if the Book of Mormon is important and true..and restoration was ordained to be of Joseph Smith..then be who you are. 

[JLHPROF]

So did Joseph do something wrong (was not perfect), or are those who think Joseph did something wrong (you know those who have never, not once, thought Joseph was perfect) those who have cultivated stony ground for their seeds?

 

No Joseph wasn't perfect.  Only Christ was perfect.

But Joseph was darn near close.  Any things he did wrong were minor in my opinion, like when we lose our temper in traffic kind of minor.

Those who accuse Joseph of major sin may fall into the stony ground category.

[Gray]

No Joseph wasn't perfect.  Only Christ was perfect.

But Joseph was darn near close.  Any things he did wrong were minor in my opinion, like when we lose our temper in traffic kind of minor.

Those who accuse Joseph of major sin may fall into the stony ground category.

 

What makes you think he was "darn near close" to perfection?

[stemelbow]

No Joseph wasn't perfect.  Only Christ was perfect.

But Joseph was darn near close.  Any things he did wrong were minor in my opinion, like when we lose our temper in traffic kind of minor.

Those who accuse Joseph of major sin may fall into the stony ground category.

he could very well have been as close to perfect as any single person ever was on the planet, save Jesus only. But you nor I could ever know that--well at least unless or until God tells us. I don't think, scripturally, close to perfect counts. That's why the atonement is for all. All fall short, after all. Whether one sins one less time then another, is not really our place to determine.

But if you like to tell yourself things you simply could not possibly be able to reasonably conclude, so be it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then let's at least say you are sending out a mixed message. here you accuse anyone who says

No, I won't concede that.

 

Acknowledging that an individual is imperfect is not the same thing as believing heinous and unfair accusations that are leveled at him. You are drawing a false dichotomy.

 

Joseph did something wrong, thus was not perfect, are those who have cultivated a stony place wherein their seeds have fallen upon. So did Joseph do something wrong (was not perfect), or are those who think Joseph did something wrong (you know those who have never, not once, thought Joseph was perfect) those who have cultivated stony ground for their seeds?

In many cases, yes, that's what happens.

 

For example, those who claim they were never informed that Joseph practiced plural marriage and are driven into a tailspin when they found out about it. Did they never read the Doctrine and Covenants? Did they never bother to open a book on Church history? Why is it seemingly OK with them that Brigham Young was a polygamist but not Joseph? And why don't they look into the some of the details that can be known about the Prophet's teaching and practice of it before jumping to conclusions about his character and decency?

 

In situations such as that, I have to conclude that the tension they feel is more due to their own limited view and understanding than any moral deficiency on the part of Joseph.

 

Joseph did something wrong, thus was not perfect, are those who have cultivated a stony place wherein their seeds have fallen upon. So did Joseph do something wrong (was not perfect), or are those who think Joseph did something wrong (you know those who have never, not once, thought Joseph was perfect) those who have cultivated stony ground for their seeds?

 

That was awesome that Elder Oaks supports criticism--moderate and measured. Sometimes, ti seems, Church leaders learn from others.

 

I think you are reading things into what he said. He was calling for a seeking of the broader view. Any criticism that fails to contemplate that is neither moderate nor measured.