History Tells Us All Extraordinary Leaders Were Flawed

I have studied enough history to know that pretty much every extraordinary person who changed history in a significant way was deeply flawed in some way - or can be dismissed easily by someone who doesn't want to accept him or her as what s/he claimed to be.

Seriously, from a non-Christian perspective, without the Savior and Redeemer reinterpretation of the promised Messiah's mission, Jesus of Nazareth was an abject failure - just one of multiple rabble-rousers and would-be-reformers killed by the Romans in that era. I'm not saying he failed or that he was just another guy who got lucky by having Saul/Paul spread his message; I'm saying it is the easiest thing in the world to look at his life and laugh at the claims about him. They simply aren't supported by "the facts" - but I still have no problem believing he actually could have been God's chosen representative to save and exalt His children. I can take that literally or figuratively - or both. I love what he taught, so I accept it came from God - even as I understand the intellectual questions that can't be answered satisfactorily.



Moses was an escaped murderer; Samson's sexual obsession with an untrustworthy person led to his capture, blindness, and eventual death; David's lust caused him to conspire to murder his desire's husband and eventually led to civil strife and the death of his son; Noah got dead drunk and fathered his own grandchild; Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to his god (which is seen only as acceptable because future generations saw a Christ-type in the story); Gandhi had some weird issues; Winston Churchill was a mean drunk; etc. 

I admire Joseph Smith, overall, even as I don't accept some of the things he did as being of God but rather being a result of his natural man. I like that he described himself as a rough stone rolling and that he was the most chastised person, by far, in the D&C.

I just wish we all accepted his self-evaluation in those times of candor. It would allow us to accept him for the person he really was, not the caricature we have created in his place.

Who Would God Choose to Start a Church or Religion?

I think God would establish a church or a religion through anyone who was a good person at heart and had the type of personality to believe God would talk with them and establish a church or religion through them.

I think just about the only people who have any chance of establishing a church (or any organization) that has the potential to change the world in some way walk a balance beam of sorts - and fall off regularly. I think the main difference is whether they get up - and which side of the beam they walk the most.

When it comes to who we accept as inspired religious leaders, I think it is VERY easy to dismiss Jesus, of Nazareth, as a crackpot and a fraud, if one is so inclined. I'm not comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus in any way that involves divinity by saying that, but I am comparing the two of them to Mohammed, Moses, Luther, Calvin, Confucius, Ghandi, King and others in saying it - and I am comparing them to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Herod and any number of people who got up and walked primarily or exclusively on the other side of the line. Every one of them had something that set them outside the norm in their field of focus, and every one of them was magnetic for those who followed them. Charismatic leaders are extraordinary - for good and/or bad - sometimes clearly one, but sometimes a difficult mix of both.

I think God understands us far better than we understand ourselves and each other - and I think he works with people we assume naturally he wouldn't, including, often outside our own awareness, us.

Our Leaders are Not Infallible, and We Don't Need to Believe They Are

I have heard too many members talk as if our prophets and apostles are infallible.  They admit imperfection when asked about it, but, in practical terms, they act as if everything our leaders say should be accepted and followed unquestioningly as if it was God's own voice - and some of them extend that down to the local level, as well.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, in our scriptures or any statement by any prophet or apostle ever recorded says that - even the ones that people often cite when making the claim.  

If people who don't believe in prophetic infallibility had to stop attending the temple, there would be relatively few people in the temples - and never any of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Presidency.  They know better than anyone else that they aren't infallible. 

Just saying.

Joseph Smith Was Not a Uniquely Egregious Sinner

Over the years, I have heard a lot of critics of the LDS Church say that Joseph Smith was a uniquely egregious sinner - that his actions make it obvious he wasn't a prophet of God.  I understand how someone could look at only his weaknesses and reach that last conclusion, but I also understand that calling him a uniquely egregious sinner and, thus, not a prophet generally displays either a lack of understanding of history or, at the very least, a complete rejection of the concept of prophets. 

There is no indication that Joseph sinned more than any other prophet throughout history - or even sinned in uniquely egregious ways. Assuming our ancient scriptures are accurate, just for the sake of comparison, and removing justifications of divine command, there are multiple murderers / death-enablers who are accepted as prophets (Moses, Elijah, Nephi, Paul, etc.); Joshua committed genocide; Samson had incontrovertible proof that Delilah was trying to betray and get him captured (more than once), and he still allowed her to make it happen - either because he loved her or because the sex was so good; Hosea got a woman pregnant who wasn't his wife; Jonah tried to run away from the Lord, openly defying him, and then grieved when people repented; Gandhi was a deeply flawed man, with multiple serious issues; Martin Luther King, Jr. was a serial adulterer; Jesus of Nazareth was killed for blasphemy - and all we have of his life are records that were written explicitly by believers to place him in the position of the [theologically revamped] Messiah when, by all objective, non-believing standards of the day, he simply was another failed Messiah figure; and the list continues. (and, it's important to point out that David never was a prophet - but his "fall with one woman" was the result of arranging the murder of her husband)

I'm not trying to hold up Joseph as a model of perfectly virtuous behavior (since I don't see him that way), but I am saying the standard we (collectively) tend to demand of our prophets and apostles (particularly in the case of Joseph, who can be seen, I believe, more in the role of an Old Testament prophet than any other type) simply is not consistent with history and our own scriptural canon. The majority of exceedingly extraordinary people throughout history have carried baggage on the other side of their "greatness", as well. I don't see the disconnect between who they were and how we tend to view them as their fault (even as I see their actions as their fault); I see that disconnect as our fault, and I include leadership in that statement just as much as general membership - since some leaders have condoned and even encouraged that unrealistic view.

As I've said in other posts here and elsewhere, I don't see how anyone who accepts the Biblical prophets can reject Joseph as a prophet based on his weaknesses and mistakes. I can see how that person can reject him for other reasons, but to say his actions disqualify him . . . I just don't see it.

Extraordinary People Do Extraordinary Things - on Both Sides of the Line

I believe much of the wonder of humanity is found at the extremes (both good and bad), and I believe we miss much of the extraordinary in our attempts to suppress "disorders" and normalize everyone. My mom is schizophrenic, so I'm not saying medication for disorders is bad in any way - but I believe strongly there is wonder and beauty that we miss when we stigmatize and reject experiences outside the norm.

I also believe people who are willing to live and think outside the box are more likely to receive revelation, inspiration, insight, etc. than those who are locked more tightly into a logic box alone - even as I value logic highly and want it to balance the illogical. Look at Nephi as presented in 2 Nephi 4 - and Joseph Smith's mercurial relationships - and impetuous Peter - and Moses being kept from entering the promised land - and Winston Chuchill's famous sarcasm and issues with intoxication - and Gandhi's and Martin Luther King's sexual dalliances - and on and on and on.   

I understand the dangers and excesses that occur at the extremes, and I support fully efforts to shield people from much of what is experienced at the extremes, but I also cannot reject anyone simply because their reality included or includes some extreme elements.  Most people are not defined by the extremes in their lives, even when those extremes are magnified by scope and public observation, unless they give in to those extremes and start seeing themselves as exceptional - which is a very different thing than being extraordinary. 

Why Do We Lack Charismatics Like Joseph Smith Now?

I think it's a simple matter of relatively few people being able to be a combination of visionary, charismatic, inspiring and truly innovative theologically (or truly innovative in most other areas). There's a reason there are no other Apples and Microsofts out there in the world. It's also a simple matter of those who are that combination of characteristics generally burning brightly for a time and then being extinguished by those who can't handle the glare and/or flaming out for various reasons.

Think about it for a minute:

How many people who fit that description lived to be old? How many ended up diving completely off the deep end into the dark side? How many were killed just as they were entering chronological maturity?

People generally work hard to contain raging fires - both physical and spiritual / religious. It's just too threatening and unstable for most people to let them burn, and they often use up all the oxygen and fuel available and extinguish themselves.

Lehi & Nephi: The Power of Scriptural Stories Gets Lost if We View Prophets as Objective Historians

I believe the power of the stories in our scriptures gets lost when family dynamics and other practical, real-life factors are ignored - when "the prophets" are viewed as next to perfect and their narratives are viewed as objective history. I understand that considering these things often moves the reader into a realm of speculation, to varying degrees, but I believe it is important to accept the need to speculate a bit when reading such stories. 

For example, I believe any effort to understand Nephi's narrative in the Book of Mormon as fully as possible must include consideration of Lehi's vision and his sudden conversion at the beginning of the Book of Mormon - and I believe understanding that vision and conversion more fully must include an attempt to consider multiple possibilities for Lehi's life prior to that vision and conversion, since his prior life had to have influenced the family dynamic and Nephi's subsequent narrative.

There is NO indication Lehi was a religious man before his vision - and there is evidence that he was an absentee father, to some degree, during Laman and Lemuel's early years. I read Nephi's family narrative as similar to the one involving Israel and his son, Joseph - the favored younger son and the anger of the older brothers, right down to "birthright / ruler" issues.

In other words, I see a very complicated, very dysfunctional situation.


In this post, I am going to focus on only one aspect of that dysfunctionality - the possibility that Lehi was an absentee father, to some degree, and the impact that simple fact might have had on the narrative we have.  

1) Lehi had the ability to pack his entire family and leave at a moment's notice - for an extended journey.  That would not have been common if he had been a "city dweller" (thus, "at" Jerusalem and not "in" Jerusalem).  Such readiness implies a background of ready mobility, which, in that time, likely means an occupation that required regular travel. 

2) Lehi followed a route through a forbidding, dangerous, nearly barren area that, despite hardship along the way, ended at a habitable area.  It might have been accidental or revealed divinely, but it also might have been due at least partly to previous travel through some of that area and/or areas like it. 

3) Lehi obviously was a wealthy man, based on Nephi's description of their attempts to get the plates.  I like Nibley's suggestion that the most likely occupation was merchant trader, and that he probably traveled to Egypt as part of that trade.  It would explain a lot of other things in the narrative, especially his understanding of written Egyptian.  It also would make him, of necessity, an absentee father, to some degree, especially in the earliest years of Laman's and Lemuel's childhood. 

4) Lehi appears to have favored Nephi more than Laman and Lemuel.  That could have been for any number of reasons, but the most likely are:

a) He had more than one wife in this lifetime (two, for sake of ease in discussion), and Nephi (and possibly Sam) were from his second wife.

There is nothing whatsoever in the record to tell us Sariah's genetic heritage.  That isn't a surprise, necessarily, given the male-centric nature of most record keeping back then - but the lack leaves interesting doors open. Lehi wasn't Jewish, and, based on his lack of knowledge of his own ancestry (finding out only by reading the plates), he wasn't a religious man in the traditional, orthodox sense of the time.  Being a man who was open to visions doesn't mean he was a religiously devoted or "actively religious" man.  There is no way to know with certainty about his background prior to his vision, which opens all kinds of possibilities outside the social, insider norm.  His married life easily could have been a bit complicated and/or unorthodox, as well. 

b) He was entering a retirement or management stage in his life a few years prior to his vision (which would make sense, psychologically, since extra time for contemplation could lead to such an experience).  If Nephi had been born as or after Lehi was entering that retirement or management stage in his life, Lehi would have doted on Nephi more than the older children who were establishing their own lives as emerging adults.  That would be doubly true if Nephi was the only son of the new wife of a wealthy, older man.

c) It also appears that Nephi's personality was much closer to Lehi's personality at the time of the vision than was true of Laman and Lemuel - and, being even more speculative, I think Laman and Lemuel might have been closer to how Lehi used to be prior to his vision.  They appear to have been more focused on wealth and the lure of the city, probably having begun to establish their own ties and their own future careers - perhaps in their father's business and perhaps as sons of luxury.  If they had been helping run the family business while their father was traveling . . . and if they were concerned about losing position and possible inherited wealth as their younger brother got more and more attention from their father . . . and if their father suddenly announced he was abandoning his (their future) business and wealth . . . and if their father asked them to abandon what they had been building for themselves to join him in the wilderness. . . and if their younger brother positioned himself as their father's confidant against them . . . and if their younger brother gave away their wealth for a history book (meaning they couldn't go back at any point and reclaim it when their father's foolish impulse ran its course) and then killed a prominent man to get that same history book (meaning they couldn't return even without their former wealth) . . .

All of that leads me to believe Lehi might have been an absentee father to some degree in his life. 

I don't know if what I just described is accurate, but I think it would explain a LOT about the narrative and how it unfolds - and I think it is a good foundation for charity in the way Laman and Lemuel are viewed.

Agency: Gospel vs. Doctrine (of Varying Sources)

I think it is extremely important to distinguish between the Gospel of Christ ("Good News" of faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, enduring to the end), the doctrines (teachings) of Christ (as recorded in our scriptures, understanding the "translated / transmitted correctly" caveat), the doctrines (teachings) of the early Christian leadership (which sometimes contradicted the teachings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament "Gospels") and the doctrines of the LDS Church.

They aren't the same thing, and I don't even classify all of the Biblical "teachings of Christ" as eternal and completely binding - since I am not convinced Jesus of Nazareth actually taught all of them. Move forward into the Pauline epistles, the teachings of the "Christian fathers", the teachings of the Popes, the teachings of the Protestant reformers, the teachings of the early Mormon leaders, the teachings of the subsequent Mormon leaders, the teachings of the current Mormon leaders, the teachings of my parents and co-worshipers, etc. and I see generally good people doing their best to understand the Gospel and the doctrines of Christ in ways that help them in their own world. I'm cool with and honor that - but I don't see it as eternal or binding. I also see my own need to "be the source" in my own life for myself - to establish my own "doctrines of Ray" that govern my life - to be, truly, an agent unto myself, as it says in the Book of Mormon.

I'm fine with some compromise (quite a bit, actually) from what might be my own personal ideal in order to work best with my immediate family, my church family, my community, etc - but, in the end, I have to figure out what my own doctrines are and try to live by them. After all, I am told that I can receive revelation (obvious or not) and live by what I believe to be the word of God. Really, that's all I can do - and I won't push that responsibility onto others, even as I default to "doctrines of the Church" when I lack a personal alternative about which I feel strongly. If it doesn't matter enormously to me, I generally will accept the group standard - but I still maintain my right and privilege to change my view about anything if I feel I've gained "further light and knowledge" about it.

I think that is a central tenet of Mormonism and indispensable within the concept of agency and accountability. 

Evil Can Be Pretty; Great (Wo)men Can be Deeply Flawed

There is an old movie that portrays evil as very seductive and handsome and convincing and suave and enticing - that evil personified can be indistinguishable from you and me based just on physical appearance - that it is easy to succumb and can be resisted only by single-minded focus on God. In one part, it also portrays evil as nearly universal - that the person who resists is the anomaly - that the world is hopelessly lost and ruled by powerful evil. In fact, I think such a message can't be ignored as one of the central themes of this particular movie. The "darkness" of the presentation style doesn't rival our more culturally popular movies (like The Dark Knight, for example), and the overall message leads to a happy ending, but the message of the section that deals directly with evil personified is fascinating.

One of the central protagonists succumbs to this evil and is saved from it only by the resistance of another protagonist who chooses consciously to thwart the evil by remaining with the other character in the continued presence of that evil in order to fight it together. Interestingly, I think many people who have seen this movie would classify the one who succumbed as the ultimate hero in the end - or, at least, just as much a hero as the one who stood fast in opposing the evil. However, I wouldn't say the film glorifies or celebrates evil in any way - even though it clothes it in such a "pretty package".

I think the idea that deeply flawed people who often fail in their struggles to resist temptation still can perform heroic acts and be respected and admired and loved because of it fits side-by-side with nearly all of the scriptural canon I try to read regularly - and I believe that is a central theme of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that is part of what we call the Restoration.  
I don't know exactly how Joseph Smith would feel about the movie I mention here in its current form, but I'm fairly certain he would understand those who view him similarly to what I just described in this paragraph - as a flawed man who did great things, nonetheless. In fact, what I have read leads me to believe that he would rather be characterized in this way than as an "idealized hero" - that he would prefer his own description of being a "rough stone rolling" to a romanticized version that describes him only in hushed terms and air-brushes away the thorns of his own flesh.

Pres. Kimball: "I Made What I Thought Was the Loving Decision"

John L. Lund's Audio CD titled "Love One Another" includes the following, which I absolutely love (bolding is mine): 

There were some kinds of challenges that President Kimball had that were very, very difficult and it came to a point of sometimes weighing church membership in the balance and he had to make the decision. And it was on the basis of his decision that the first presidency of the Church would act at the time, because this was when he was an apostle.

President Kimball under those circumstances would say that sometimes lives are so complex, conditions are so incredibly confused, guilt and responsibility are so diffused in so many ways that it is very, very difficult and it is not a clear cut issue of right and of wrong. And he said that frequently with some of these more difficult problems he would pray mightily unto the Lord and ask for His guidance and direction and sometimes would not receive a clear cut answer as to the direction that he should proceed and that when that would happen, he would stop and ask himself the question:

“What is the loving thing to do?”

And he said, "Some day I know that I will stand before the judgment bar of God, and some of the decisions I made will have been wrong. I will have erred. I will have made a mistake that maybe the decision should have been another way."

And the Savior will ask me: 

“Why did you make that decision? That was not the correct decision.’"

And I will say with the integrity of my heart: 

"Lord, I did that because at the time I wasn’t sure what was the direction that I should go and so I made what I thought was the loving decision.”

I am confident that God will look down upon me on those occasions and forgive me of my error."  

In Some Ways, I Prefer Our Modern Prophets to Joseph Smith - Even As I Love Joseph

I really do believe that Joseph was a prophet who received revelation from God - and I really do believe he was sincere in believing he was a prophet who received revelation from God. However, I also believe he would be diagnosed and medicated if he lived now - that he wouldn't be accepted in our own day and age as a prophet specifically because we categorize what allowed him to see visions and hear voices as disabilities.

I know that view puts me on the precipice of a very high cliff, since there is a fine line between being able to tap into something extraordinary and wonderful and being off-one's-rocker, certifiably nuts. I understand that, but we strive so hard to eliminate the extremes now that we end up with widespread mediocrity. Yes, we're eliminating the negative extremes, but we also are eliminating the positive extremes - often within the same person.

In saying that, I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to eliminate the negative extremes. I don't want my mom (and everyone around her) to have to deal with the negative extremes of her schizophrenia. I don't want her to have horrible, vicious hallucinations. I want her to be able to have the benefits of her medication in order to be the spiritual person I knew growing up, even if those medications blunt some of the natural spiritual insights that are the flip-side of her "disability".

I don't see Joseph Smith as schizophrenic - but I do believe he probably had some condition we would diagnose clinically and try to eliminate now. In many ways, that's too bad on an individual basis - but, in other ways, it's good on a group, communal basis. It creates mich more communal, institutional stability - as it stifles the type of individual, personal "out-there-ness" that is the root cause of almost all radical revolution. Make no mistake about it: Joseph Smith was a radical revolutionary in the truest sense of that term. Radical revolutionaries simply must be borderline nuts to have the visions they have, and, given our rejection of radical revolution, we now have stable, inspired guides instead.

All in all, I'll take that - since I don't know how I personally would deal with the incredible chaos, messiness and suffering inherent in radical revolution.

Revelation, Inspiration and Our Expectations of Prophets and Apostles

There were lots of lengthy time periods in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon without new revelations and periods during which the prophets only reiterated important truths and called people to repentance - and the entire New Testament fits that description with the exception of Paul's converting vision and John's Revelation.

We tend to conflate revelation and inspiration a lot. "To reveal" means to "uncover / make visible that which was covered / not visible". To reveal is to make known the previously unknown or unknowable. "To inspire" means to "provide new insight into something already known / visible". Those are two very different things. 

When you get right down to it, not a whole lot in our scriptures is "pure revelation". Most of it is inspiration to varying degrees - some to an amazing degree, but not truly revelatory at heart.

Ironically, that's one of the reasons why I can sustain the apostles as prophets, seers and revelators. I see that role as being able to prophecy, see and reveal IF such things are needed - NOT as being a constant or even regular (or perhaps even occasional) condition. I just see those things happening so rarely throughout our recorded religious history that I don't expect anyone to experience them much, if at all. I can sustain lots of people as possible conduits for prophecy, foresight and revelation, so I have no problem doing so with the Church's leadership or viewing them as conduits for special revelation and inspiration for the Church and even the world. That for which I hope is a higher degree of regular (not constant) inspiration than most, and I think there is a very good argument for that among the apostles.

Apostles and Other Church Leaders Are Just Like Us More than They Are Different

"We're just like you." - Paul (A Latter-day Voice)

It Is Important to Admit the Frailties and Faults of Our Leaders

I believe passionately in being able to look at issues, even those that involve leaders, as honestly and openly as we can without it leading to wallowing in criticism or condemnation - to still remain actively involved in the LDS Church (and even be "faithful" in every meaningful way, in some cases) while not seeing lots of things in black-and-white terms or like lots of other members. I also believe I can recognize, admit and discuss what appear to me to be real weaknesses and even mistakes without it making me reject / dismiss others because of what amounts to them being fully human. That can be done easily with regard to how others see me, so I try to grant that same charity to others as view them. 

I'm going to use an extreme example to make my point, and it might be a little shocking at first, but please understand why I'm using it:

Jesus of Nazareth is believed to be the only perfect man who ever lived, specifically because he is believed to have been "a partaker of the divine nature" in a way that nobody else has been. He is believed to have been the son of God and a God in and of himself. He is believed to have never sinned - meaning, according to the definition of James, that he never acted in opposition to his understanding.

Does that mean that I am "criticizing" him if I point out that I think he lost his temper on at least one occasion - or use that incident to say that he might have had a bad temper if he allowed himself to show it? Is it criticizing him if I hate the idea that "little Lord Jesus no crying he makes" - since I believe he cried just like any other baby, and soiled his diaper, and perhaps even punched a friend who cheated in a game when he was a child, or even cheated while he was playing a game when he was a child?

I don't see it that way. First, I don't see those things as sins, but I also don't see pointing out those things as criticism. I see it simply as talking about the idea that he really was human even while he really was divine. We say he was human in a very real way that matters deeply, but, if that is the case, we do him a grave disservice if we can't talk openly about what that means - about the implications of believing in a God who also was human. If we ignore and never speak of that dichotomy, if we ignore it in the name of not appearing to be speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, we are castrating him in a very real, though figurative, way.

I think the same applies to every person - and I think it applies to Moses, Peter, Paul, (and Mary - sorry, couldn't resist), Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any other prophet or even historically extraordinary figure even more so that to you and me. I deserve to be seen and understood just as much for my imperfections as I am for my strengths. I deserve to be treated like a fully human being - meaning my callings over the years should be discussed simultaneous to my difficulty with formal, kneeling prayer all my life. My inclination toward charity should be considered along with my warped and risque sense of humor. I am a saint in some ways, but I'm a sinner in others - and admitting that about our prophets and other leaders isn't the type of "criticism" I try to avoid.

It's just an admission of human frailties even within our greatest leaders - and that admission is extremely important to me.

Seek Diligently for Truth, No Matter Where It Is Found

I believe deeply in finding truth in everything.  I think that outlook is a fundamental part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 7: 5-19, especially) and Joseph Smith's philosophy that animated the Restoration and his role as a prophet.

I was asked once if organized religion loses potency when it admits there is truth in everything - that a religion doesn't posses or even understand all truth and that "the fulness of the Gospel" doesn't include an understanding of all truth. My response was that it does not, according to Joseph Smith - or the notion of a process called the "restoration of all things" through on-going / continuing revelation.

Part of the grandeur I see in pure Mormonism is the audacity to believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one whole - and that striving to comprehend that whole is worth the effort. Limiting that whole to what we know now, and denying that there still is truth outside our current understanding to be included in the circumscription process (including things that others know of which we are not aware), goes against the very core of the Restoration.

A good friend of mine once wrote the following when he was asked about believing there is truth in every religion, denomination, faith tradition, science, etc.

1. If something is proven to be true, or beyond reasonable doubt, it's simply part of the gospel. As we study the creation, and the processes whereby creation occurred, I come to be in awe of the creator. Scientific discovery does not diminish my regard for god, it enhances my understanding of the absolute miracle of god's inherent power: nature. That god works entirely through nature is part of what Joseph Smith said, at least, in section 88, one of his most important and thoughtful revelations.

2. If something true is in conflict with scripture, then we need to re-evaluate our literal understanding of the scripture. I have to recognize how scripture was written in the mind and heart of the revelator, and thus, it's going to include the revelator's worldview. Obviously, this is controversial to those who believe that scripture is literally and forever true. Scripture is the milk -- it is not the meat of the gospel. As we grow up in our understanding, we sometimes need to set aside childish things.

3. There are a host of things that cannot be proven, and we need to take an attitude of suspended judgment for these things. I don't know if we pre-existed. I think it's a very useful model as part of the Plan of Salvation, but I simply don't know. Is it imperative for me to say "I know we lived with god before this life"? I believe it, I trust in it, but I cannot explain it. I don't know how it works.

4. I should never be afraid of truth. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did some pretty whacked out things, then I think it important to understand their humanity. I'm not afraid of it. I can understand how once you know that JS did a number of questionable things, that it's hard to believe that he was also a 'prophet', but I don't have a problem with it. I'm sure some people think I'm intellectually dishonest as a result. Whatever; truth is truth. Judgment is entirely another matter. I think it's true that Joseph did some pretty human things. My judgment is not affected by it -- he's still a prophet. He still facilitated the restoration. I find truth in the restoration, and therefore I can only conclude that God uses imperfect humans to do his work. This should be obvious from scripture. 

In summary, going back to my first thoughts in this post, as I am exposed to the thoughts, beliefs, discoveries, etc. of others, I try hard to make sure my initial response is:

What truth can I learn from this - no matter the source? 

I Like Joseph Smith, the Man, Much More than Joseph Smith, the Caricature

I have been asked multiple times in my life if Joseph Smith might have been (fill in the blank) by skeptics and opponents of the LDS Church.  Speaking strictly from an intellectual viewpoint, and employing standard psychological perspectives, there are multiple possibilities - and that applies even to something like the translation of the Book of Mormon.  I personally accept Joseph as a visionary prophet who brought forth modern scripture, but, again, from a strictly logical perspective, it is important to me to be able to understand intellectually and emotionally how others see him - to consider the possibilities.  The following list is not comprehensive, but it illustrates what I mean: 

According to his own words, Joseph was a treasure seeker by nature and inclination. Therefore, in regard to the Book of Mormon, the possibilities are not limited to just actual historical record on ancient plates or intentional fraud.

1) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being of ancient origin and buried by Moroni. (i.e., translated/transmitted non-fiction)

2) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being generic plates of unknown origin revealed by Moroni and "translated" by the gift and power of God. (i.e., inspired non-fiction)

3) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being the prop for divine transmission of the word of God but not literally a translation/transmission of an ancient record. (i.e., truly inspired fiction)

4) Completely visionary experiences, with something physical used as tangible "proof" of what was seen in vision. (could be any of the genres above - and could be visions of "actual beings" or hallucinations, both of which would be "real" and lead to sincere belief in what was envisioned)

5) Made up stories by an intentional fraud.

There are more possibilities, but the above are enough to make my point about trying to understand the perspectives of others. The above (and all the other options I've considered over the years) is much more analytical than an attempt to reach a specific conclusion that includes spiritual witnesses and constitutes a testimony. Having said that, the "simplest" options above are #1, #4 and #5. I can't prove any of the options above, but I've studied everything as a history teacher by nature and inclination, and the intentional fraud option just doesn't work for me. I've known a few "visionary" people in my life, and what I've read of Joseph fits them (and other historical figures) quite well. Therefore, I personally choose to see him as a visionary man - with all of the good and bad associated with that orientation.

Just in conclusion, I also think it's instructive for those who accept the stories literally that the actual quote is that his "name would be had for good and evil" - not that people would say good and bad things about him. When you parse that statement, analytically and not apologetically, it opens up all kinds of possibilities that make a lot of sense - at least to me. It certainly can make him much more complex and "real" than the caricatures that have been created of him over the years - by both passionate defenders and passionate opponents.

Personally, I like and admire the complex man much, much more than any caricature.

Why Do We Need Prophets: A Different Answer

I believe one of the reasons "we" need prophets is because "we" need to believe in prophecy.

In other words, I believe deeply in the need to believe in prophecy - fundamentally, at the personal, individual level. I believe deeply in the need to believe in on-going revelation - fundamentally, at the personal, individual level. I believe deeply in the need to believe in inspiration - fundamentally, at the personal, individual level.

Historically, however, that need to believe in prophecy, revelation and inspiration tends to be recognized ONLY when there are individuals who claim to be prophets - who "model" prophecy, revelation and inspiration and "teach" it explicitly in those terms. It is maximized when those "models" also teach clearly that such things are available to all who are open to it - as was the case with Joseph Smith. (Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in an equality of magnitude with these things - just in the need to believe in them collectively and individually.)

Thus, I believe the collective "we" needs prophets, because the collective "we" needs prophecy - and the collective "we" doesn't seek for it on our own. Individuals do, but "we" don't.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: When Does Revelation (Personal and Prophetic) Normally Come

Last Sunday, we wrapped up the monthly theme of "Prophets and Revelation" by focusing on two scriptural stories that describe very different situations but the same action: killing someone else. I used these stories (Abraham & Isaac and Nephi & Laban) to explore what revelation really means and when people generally receive revelation, specifically to address personal revelation in the future of each of the students.

We started by revisiting the story of Abraham being tempted to kill Isaac. (See last week's lesson for a discussion of the word "tempt" in the scriptural account.)  I asked everyone to pinpoint the "revelation" in this story - to tell me what the revelation was. One of the students immediately answered: "Obedience brings blessings." I pointed out that the story can lead to a lesson about obedience, but obedience wasn't the revelation - since obedience had been taught for a long time prior to that moment. At that point, they were stumped, so I altered the question a bit to be: "What was revealed to Abraham that had been hidden / unknown previously?" After some discussion, they understood that the revelation was that human / child sacrifice was to be discarded as a form of worship - and that animal sacrifice was to take its place.

So, in a very real way, the revelation in the story was a clear statement of what would be worded in Moses' time as:

"Thou shalt not murder (your children)" - with an additional understanding of the Atonement that Abraham hadn't possessed previously.

We then turned to the account of Nephi and Laban, and I asked again what the revelation was in this story. Since nobody could answer that immediately, we read the main verses in 1 Nephi 4 that talk about it. We talked about what it means to be "constrained" ("confined; restrained; compelled; etc."). We talked about Nephi's reaction to the idea that he needed to kill Laban ("No way! I've never killed anyone and can't do it.") - and then we talked about the difference between that reaction and Abraham's reaction first thing the next morning. ("Okay, let's get going so I can do this.")

We discussed the concept that Abraham had to be "constrained" NOT to kill Isaac (since he was inclined naturally by his upbringing to kill his son), while Nephi had to be constrained TO kill Laban (since he lived with a long-time practice of animal sacrifice, not human sacrifice) - and how the Isaac story might have been different if Abraham had reacted like Nephi did. (Since the change in sacrificial ordinance was the intended outcome, God might have gone ahead and revealed that to Abraham right away, without all the drama.)

We read the verses that explain Nephi's justifications of his actions, ending with the "revelation" (the new understanding) in verse 13:

It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

I pointed out that, up until the time when Nephi was faced with doing something he would not have done naturally, he simply was "honoring his father" and "being a good son". His dad told him they needed to get the plates, so he tried to do that. They asked for the plates, and they tried to buy the plates. Finally, he went into the city on his own and discovered Laban passed out drunk. It only was when he was faced with killing Laban (something that went beyond being a good son) that he was able to see WHY he had to get the plates - beyond the generic, "God commanded it." The revelation wasn't the command to get the plates; rather, it was gaining an understanding of the reason for the command.

In Abraham's situation, likewise, the revelation came ONLY when he was ready to do something that he didn't understand naturally - NOT killing his son. He had "gone through the motions" of blind obedience and, unlike Nephi, had to be stopped from killing because he followed his natural instincts rather than thinking and questioning first.

(Note: I think there is a very reasonable justification for Nephi killing Laban, especially for that time period and the overall story.  I wrote that post this past Wednesday.)

Finally, to follow the concept of really studying scriptures to understand the people, their stories and the actions of prophets (not just what they taught), I briefly summarized (since we were almost out of time) the story of King Mosiah changing the government structure at the end of his life.

1) Mosiah had taken leadership of a people more numerous than the Nephites. That simple fact opens all kinds of issues relative to his government-altering actions before he died.

2) If one of his sons wasn't going to take his place, there was a good chance that one of the people of Mulek who already was influential and popular would do so - especially if the kingship was determined by popular vote. Again, it is stated clearly in the text that the people of Mulek greatly outnumbered the descendants of Nephi in that area. In fact, the moment Mosiah's sons rejected the throne (and Alma the Younger also did), those other influential Mulekite contenders might have started agitating for the position very quickly.

3) Nehor is described as being another King Noah, in philosophy and intent. Amalici was one of his disciples. They are said to have gained a following FAR too quickly to have started a grass-roots campaign from scratch at the end of Mosiah's life.

4) If Mosiah knew either of them was likely to become the king, it would have provided the best possible motivation to change the system.

5) If you think about it, the best possible reason for Nehor, and then Amlici, to be extremely upset and demand what they had assumed they would attain would have been what they would have seen as an attempt to perpetuate the minority rule of the Nephites over them. Consider the situation in some Islamic countries even today; there are striking parallels.

6) It's easy to condemn Nehor and Amlici, given the descriptions we have of them, and I'm not trying to endorse them in any way - but it's harder to realize that they might have had a very compelling legal argument and an incredibly strong emotional appeal to a majority people ruled by those of the minority.

Many things are more complex than we tend to assume - and many things in the Book of Mormon are pretty amazing when looked upon a bit more comprehensively than we tend to do.

I emphasized that prophets often do things not from revelation (though Mosiah wasn't a prophet, he might have seen his decision as revelatory) but rather from a perceived need at the time. [Another example I didn't share in the class would be Moses' interaction with the daughters of Zelophehad - where he first allowed them to keep the lands of their inheritance when they married (since their father had died without having sons) and then restricted them to marrying only someone in their own tribe (so their tribe would not lose the lands of their father's inheritance when they married).] There is nothing wrong with leaders making non-revelatory decisions, since leaders often have to make decisions for organizations on their own, based on their best understanding - but we need to be careful not to confuse those decisions and personal views as "revelation" and accept everything they do and say, by default, as the pure word of God.

I ended the lesson by mentioning that I believe all of the students will be faced in the future with something(s) that requires them to gain new understanding (to have something "revealed" to them) and that I believe most of those revelations will come to them only when they have thought, pondered, questioned, considered, discussed, studied, prayed, etc. diligently - when they are at the point where they simply can't understand something better through their own efforts. At those times, through patiently "enduring to the end", a new insight will hit them and they will understand FAR better than if they simply had followed conventional wisdom and relied on the testimonies / understanding of others. Those times hopefully won't involve an impression to kill someone, but the deepest insights generally will come in the times of deepest struggle and trial. I told them I hope they don't give up before the revelation they need comes to them, no matter how it comes to them - even if it seems to be only an idea that makes sense as a solution to what they face at the time.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Studying Scriptures for Revelation about the Bad as Well as the Good

The lesson yesterday was based on the outline entitled, "How can I use scripture study skills to help me learn more about the Priesthood?" - but I changed the focus to learning more about revelation instead of the Priesthood.

We started by reading a bunch of the scriptures listed in the outline, focusing on the key words and phrases I have bolded below:

1 Nephi 10:19 - For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

I emphasized that it's not enough just to read - that we need to SEEK and do so "diligently". I also pointed out that being "unfolded" implies multiple steps and more time that just one or two times.

D&C 88:118 - And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

I asked the students what they think of when they read "the best books" - that we would be focusing on the scriptures today but what other books would fit that category. They mentioned textbooks, books about science, math, history, etc. One person mentioned historical fiction and how it can be easier to read and ponder than the more "dry" textbooks. I mentioned scriptural commentaries, even by people outside our religion, and the scriptural texts of other people. I told them that they need to find their own "best books" - the things that will give them the "learning" they want to obtain.

1 Nephi 19:23 - And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.

I mentioned that we usually talk about likening things from the scriptures by focusing on the positive messages and how we can get a "moral to the story" from them. I told them that such an approach is important, but it is more important to read each story and passage carefully to see what we can learn from it, no matter what that is, good or bad. I mentioned that, later in the lesson, we were going to look at two specific stories in the Old Testament with that in mind.

2 Nephi 4:16 - Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.

and

D&C 138:1 - On the third of October, in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen, I sat in my room pondering over the scriptures;

I simply emphasized with these verses that it is important to think about what we read at times other than while we are reading them - that often the deepest insights occur after we have had time to "digest" what we've read and mull over it a bit.

Finally,

2 Nephi 32:3 - Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ;

Using that as the foundation (really digging into the words as if we were participating in an old fashioned feast), we turned to two stories in the Old Testament: Abraham and the attempted sacrifice of Isaac (which we have discussed at least twice previously in class) and Moses and the annihilation of the Midianites.

We read Genesis 22:1, and I told them that I had missed a word and its implications for nearly 50 years as I read and talked about this story. That verse says:

And it came to pass after these things, that God did TEMPT Abraham.

We looked at the notes at the bottom of the page and saw that two possible alternative readings for that word are "test" and "prove". I asked the students why we always use "test" when talking about this passage and never "tempt" - the word that actually is in the translation we use. They said that "tempt" has a negative connotation and is used to talk about trying to get someone to do something that is bad - that we don't see God as someone who tempts people and tries to get them to do bad things.

I then asked them, since it was Mother's Day, how they would react if the thought hit them that they should kill their mothers - or if a friend told them he had had a dream in which he was told to kill his mother. They all looked shocked and said they would never have that thought (and certainly not act on it) - and that they probably would recommend professional counseling if a friend seemed serious at all about it.

I summarized by saying that such a thought / impression / whatever would not be a temptation for them - and asked them why it would have been a temptation for Abraham if he thought God had asked him to kill his son. We talked about the story of the destruction of Sodom and how Abraham had argued / bargained with the Lord about saving the city. I asked them why Abraham hadn't argued / bargained with the Lord about killing Isaac - and, again, why the word "tempt" might be a great word to use for what happened.

That stumped them completely, so I took them through an abbreviated version of the story in the PofGP about Abraham's background - how he had been raised in a culture and religion that practiced human and child sacrifice - how nobody in that area would have questioned the idea of him sacrificing Issac (that nobody at that time and place would have suggested professional counseling). They would have understood and supported him, so, given his own personal history, it really would have been a temptation - and, given how he reacted, a temptation to which he succumbed. Ultimately, God had to stop him from actually doing it - so, even if we use "test" instead of "tempt", the use of "tempt" can help us see that Abraham might have failed the test by succumbing to the temptation of his upbringing and not questioning or arguing with the Lord about it.

I emphasized that what we had just discussed was completely consistent with the actual account in the scriptures and only hit me as I talked with others about the story and pondered / feasted on it.

We then turned to the story in Numbers 31 about the Israelite war with the Midianites and how similar it was to the current situation in Nigeria with the girls who were kidnapped and given as "brides" to the soldiers. We read verses 1-2, which say:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, "Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people."

I pointed out that the only thing the Lord commanded was that the Israelites fight the Midianites and win. There are NO specifics in the account.

In verse 14, it says Moses was "wroth" (extremely angry) and that Moses commanded what happened next - not just the death of all the men capable of fighting (which already had been done) but the killing of all the women and male children and the giving of all the virgins to the Israelite soldiers as wives.

I told them that it is easy to skim over the story and assume that God commanded everything that was done - but that simply isn't what the account says. I then shared with them the idea articulated by a friend that we can get so passionate about doing what we believe to be what God wants that we end up being over-zealous and going beyond what was commanded. We can believe that tithing is important - and figure that if 10% is good, 11% or 60% has to be better; we can believe that the scriptures are important - and eliminate all other books from our lives; we can believe that the Sabbath is a day of rest - and sleep all day each Sunday; we can believe that missionary work is important - and harangue people until they avoid us like the plague; etc., etc., etc.

We discussed the concept of using scriptures not just to teach us "the good parts version" (anybody recognize that reference?) but also to help us avoid making the mistakes other people have made (even prophets) throughout history.

We finished by going back to the title of the lesson, and I told them that I view the new insight I had gained from studying those two stories over a long period of time and with "real intent" to be a good example of one type of important revelation - the uncovering of something that previously had been hidden from me.

The Literal Foundation of Symbolism and Figurative Teachings

I have come to accept lots of things within the teachings of Mormonism as symbolic and figurative, things that most members see as literal, but, at the heart of it all, my faith is very literal and focused on the concept of the relationship between God, as a real Father, Jesus, as a real Son, and all of us, as real children - that, "I am a child of God, and He has sent me here," and that, "As God is, (hu)man(s) may become." For me, that foundation is literal - even, again, as I have come to view many aspects of our "details" about that foundation as symbolic or best approximations. 

I believe one of the geniuses of profound prophetic vision is the ability to take the literal and the symbolic and meld them into a cohesive narrative that allows individuals to see either (or even both) within that narrative.  I think Jesus was the Master at that - with the Biblical parables as a great example, but Joseph Smith also was phenomenal at it - with his repositioning of Heaven within the temple, the placing of Eden in his own land, etc.  Literal and/or figurative, those narratives have great power - and they all are centered on the literalness of our intimate relationship as a human family. 

I really don't care all that much about how individuals see the "details", but the literalness of the foundation itself is very important to me.