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.

How I See Joseph Smith in Relation to Plural Marriage

I have been asked about Joseph's practice of plural marriage many times in my life, and most people who asked wanted the answer to be simple and concise.  I have not been able to give them that kind of answer, as I believe it was complicated, evolving and impossible to stereotype or describe in simple terms.  The following is my attempt to summarize my view as succinctly as possible - acknowledging that it only scratches the surface of how I view this issue: 

1) Joseph instituted and practiced "plural marriage". The LDS Church states that openly in its manuals, and the evidence is over-whelming.

2) Joseph didn't institute or practice polygamy as it was lived under Brigham Young and as it is understood by almost everyone today when that word is used, and that also is indisputable. He didn't live with multiple women, splitting his time with them. He didn't have traditional marriages with them, in which children were born and supported. There are allegations that he might have fathered as many as three children with women other than Emma, but there is no proof of that - and some of the previous allegations have been dismissed. It's an open question still, but so is just about any other unprovable allegation, so I don't see it as a productive discussion, personally. He was sealed to already married women. He allowed women to be sealed to multiple men. At the last stages of his life, he seemed to be focused exclusively on dynastic and communal sealings, rather than the earliest moves into polygamy.

3) Joseph experimented with multiple forms of marriage / sealing arrangements. That also is indisputable. Emma denied everything until the day she died, but Joseph absolutely wasn't constrained by the social morals of his time with regard to marriage arrangements. Personally, I believe he saw the next life very differently than his followers and others and was trying to approximate his view in this life - and I also believe he was a highly physical, charismatic man who liked and was attracted to women.

4) Joseph was sealed to a very few young teenagers (only three under the age of 17), and they receive the focus of most discussions, but he also was sealed to far more older women who were not "temptations" in a physical way (with three being over 50). His "marriages" defy typical patterns, and I believe they reflect his evolving view of marriage and, even more importantly, sealing much more than anything else.

5) There is no evidence that there was a sexual component with any particular type of woman to whom he was sealed - but there is evidence that such a component was more prevalent in the earlier sealings than in the later ones. I also see that as a manifestation of his evolving views.

6) I believe Brigham Young didn't share Joseph's personality or "vision" of the next life in ways that are specific to plural marriage and community sealing, so he instituted the model he understood - the traditional structure of classic polygamy.

7) I loathe coercion of just about any variety, and that feeling is most intense when sex is part of it. I don't like the angel-with-a-sword accounts, whether Joseph believed them or not (and I'm not convinced at all that he made them up, since I can believe he believed them without believing they came from God). I don't believe all "visions" are good or of God, and I believe the issues surrounding all of this might be one major reason he was told that his name would be had for good and evil.

8) I love Joseph and admire him greatly, but I don't believe he was infallible - and I believe when he made mistakes, they tended to mirror his great achievements.

9) I believe people can love multiple spouses deeply and equally, and that simple fact alone keeps me from dismissing or rejecting the concept of some kind of plural marriage arrangements in this life and the next - for those people who would choose such arrangements. I also know enough of history to know of situations where catastrophe decimated male populations and gave rise to polygamy - and, while that is NOT the case in our modern Mormon history, those situations also keep me from condemning plural marriage arrangements in totality.

That's my short version.

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.

Perhaps the Best Post about Joseph Smith I've Ever Read

Playing the Ball as It Lies - David Niclay (Rational Faiths) 

As someone who loves golf but is a lousy golfer, this analogy really works for me. 

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.

Religious Tolerance and Exclusive Truth Claims

I think it’s interesting that religious tolerance often is weakest in those who demand it for themselves the most vocally. They cry out for tolerance and acceptance, but they turn around and stereotype others - condemning them to Hell without really understanding their beliefs. The “tolerance of condescension” still is better than the “intolerance of competing conviction”. Given the stereotyped attitudes of the irreligious liberal and the evangelical conservative, I’ll take the irreligious liberal any day - and, ironically, twice on Sunday. 


We walk a fine line between the type of tolerance Joseph Smith preached so passionately (allow all men everywhere the same privilege, let them worship how, when or what they may) and the claims of truth he made simultaneously (the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth). Unfortunately, it is far too easy to cross that line and allow the claims to temper our tolerance.

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.

In Defense of "Praise to the Man"

I was telling a friend of mine how I hear various complaints about the hymn "Praise to the Man" from people who feel it presents Joseph Smith as some kind of perfect Being - and how I personally really like the song.  She wrote back to me and shared the following perspective - and I agree with almost all of it.  (I have edited it only slightly, to add a little perspective of my own.) 

First I sense where and how the song can stick in someone's throat. When everyone else is singing it with all their gusto, some people picture a flawless man in a soft blue coat gazing majestically into the horizon. Once the picture becomes less polished - once someone sees the real, complex man and not just the caricature of an infallible prophet, it can make it harder for some people to shout, "Hallelujah."

If you don't mind though, I've come to think of it another way.

No matter how someone sees him - flawless or fallible, Joseph Smith died an untimely death by assassination. Often we mortals experience an intense response to that. Just look at Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy. At the time of both of their deaths, they were not beloved like they were afterward. It was rumored that Kennedy wouldn't win re-election. Many in America had lost faith in the man. But his death and the morbid events that caused it pushed him to a greatness he may have never achieved otherwise. The images burned painfully in our minds brought something unexpected to the forefront. Though no hymns were written for him, his works and images became land marks for everyone. His PT109 story was the stuff heroes are made of . His "Profiles in Courage" continues to be a go-to book for leadership. All this from a bullet. Lincoln's untimely death was very similar. The South still didn't love him, no matter how we would like to imagine it. The North had questions and concerns, as well. But that bullet shifted many people's feelings toward him and about his legacy.

In the American West this band of people experienced something similar. The hymn itself was written by a man who once hated Joseph Smith - and many people don't realize that. Of anyone who could have decided either to mourn or vilify Joseph, Brother Phelps was close to number one. In his grief he wrote a song, and that song is now an anthem. Why it didn't get lost in history, I don't know. Other songs written for the saints did.

I take a deep breath and try to remember what those left behind might have felt. They lived it. They lived with Joseph. How much they knew, we may never know, but like other leaders his death was a beacon for them. This song was their anthem of hope.

I have not decided what Joseph would think of it. Some of his final addresses would make it seem like he would be thrilled to have his own hymn. But other parts of him lead me to believe differently. For all the ego that we suppose he had, I have found it intriguing that he rarely preached from the book "he wrote". (Those quotation marks are important, since I'm not saying he didn't translate it.)  Many of his addresses were platforms from the bible - especially Paul. I don't read of meetings that began with, "As King Benjamin taught us . . . " or, "Like Nephi of old said . . ." From my vantage point, I would expect an egotistical soul to pulpit-pound his magnum opus. Yes, he never rejected it; he testified of its origin and his conviction of it. However, it wasn't his platform. Something else was.

So, for me, "Praise to the Man" is a hymn I hum or sing in remembrance of a man who inspired bands of people to cross oceans, deserts, and mountains in the hope of something deep that burned in their hearts - and in remembrance of those people whose hope burned so brightly. 

I also should add that Mormons use the word "praise" very differently than many other Christians do, and understanding that simple fact removes so much of the concern.

A Central Genius of Joseph Smith that Many Don't Understand

Have you ever considered that perhaps a central genius of Joseph Smith was that he was able to transplant the great figurative mythology of history into the literalness of his own time and location - to see the symbolism of an ancient world and turn it into a moving literalism in his own day?  Have you ever considered that some of the things he preached might have been more a case of geographic transplantation of mythology than of literal, historical truth? 

Seriously, what more grand endeavor is there than the idea of entering the presence of God on a regular basis - of taking Heaven (a symbolic location, I believe - "Home can be a heaven on earth." and "The kingdom of heaven is within you.") and locate it at the end of a symbolic journey here on earth that can be traveled over and over again in our own literal time and space? 

We have temples that do that, at least symbolically.

What more grand vision is there than the idea that Zion is where we build it - and the accompanying effort to take the City of Enoch (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally in our own land(s)?

We have stakes that do that, at least in theory.

What more grand concept is there than the idea that paradise is in our own backyard - and the accompanying relocation of the Garden of Eden (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally where you want your people to live?

We have Independence and the surrounding area that does that, at least in theory.

What more grand hope is there than the idea that Christ will return to where his saints gather - to take Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the New Jerusalem (symbolic stories, I believe) and locate them literally at the "beginning" and "desired end" of your own community?

We have a valley and a designated location that do that, at least in theory.

Joseph was a "restorer" in his own mind - and, if you look at that role as comprehensively as possible, the "Restoration" becomes much more than just a theology or a group of ideas. It becomes the re-establishment of an entire symbolic world, moving backward AND forward in time until we literally are walking and talking with God.

"One eternal round" is a powerful concept - if it can be seen figuratively and not literally. Seen literally, it has power enough for most people; taken figuratively, it has immense power for me. I don't begrudge those who take it literally, if it works for them. It is when the literal loses significance that it has to transition to figurative or lose its power completely.

After all, the endowment ceremony itself said for a long time that the creation of Adam and Eve, as depicted, was figurative. I think that line was removed in order to benefit those who had a hard time accepting and understanding it - but that removal doesn't make it any less of a fact that Mormon leaders have spoken symbolically and figuratively a lot throughout our history, including to this very day. They just speak literally more often than figuratively, since a FAR higher percentage of people are literalists than figurativists, so to speak. Literalism is general and works fine for a community of settlers; figurativism is individualized and must be pursued and constructed outside of communal constraints by those who are explorers. Leaders can speak figuratively, but they can't lead figuratively - and that's an incredibly important distinction, imo.

The issue for subsequent leaders (those who followed and follow Joseph) is taking the "transfigured symbolic become literal" and not forgetting that it really is symbolic at its root - and that is not an easy recognition, at all, especially for those who naturally see things literally. There's no failure in continuing the literal iteration, but the real power is in recognizing the symbolic and figurative foundation for what it is - sheer visionary brilliance, imo.

I don't know if that makes any sense at all to you who will read this, since some of you surely will be literalists more naturally than I, but it's absolutely mind-blowing to me.

I Have a Complex View of Joseph Smith: An Important Lesson I Think We Miss from D&C 121

With what I am about to say, I probably should start with an explicit statement that I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and am amazed at what he was able to accomplish. I love him largely because he wasn’t the caricature everyone (his defenders AND his critics) tends to paint.

With that said, I find D&C 121 to be absolutely fascinating as it relates to "US", not just as it relates to "THEM". I believe we water down its message greatly when we read it in context of "others" and fail to read more closely and critically in order to see how it relates just as meaningfully (actually, more meaningfully) to ourselves and those with whom we worship. 

D&C 121 starts, in my opinion, with Joseph finally losing it and demanding that God come down and wipe out the enemies of the Church. In a very real way, I think he “broke” finally - and fully gave in to his natural tendencies, if you will.

When you read the first part of D&C 121, in essence, Joseph begged God to be the Old Testament protector / destroyer God – not the long-suffering God of the New Testament that he largely had been up to that point. (That also fits with how I see Joseph’s prophetic role – MUCH more as a classic OT prophet than as a classic NT apostle – and I’m fine with that, since he obviously believed in a restoration of all things that was founded in OT theology in many ways.)

D&C 121 then follows his plea with a reassurance from God that basically tells Joseph to chill out and continue to endure – in a very real way, although couched in gentle, loving terms, telling him he had crossed the line and asked for that which couldn’t be granted. For what had he asked? A demonstration of divine power that would prove Joseph’s claims once and for all - which, in and of itself, might not have been such a bad thing, but, in context of killing numerous people, was a very radical demand. (I have used the word "demand" twice so far in this post, and I really do read it as a demand - not a simple, humble request.) 

The middle part of the section then outlines the nature of the Priesthood and the responsibilities of those who hold it – and the section ends with what I see as a deeply reflective, humbling admission and/or divine admonition. It says (with the EMPHASIS mine):

v. 37 – “when WE undertake to cover OUR sins, or to gratify OUR pride, OUR vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in ANY degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”

v. 39 – “WE have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of ALMOST ALL men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

Personally, I think one of the reasons Joseph received this revelation was to teach him (and we who read it) that even prophets (as part of almost all men) not only could cross but actually had crossed the line into unrighteous dominion – and, in doing so, could lose the protection of God they had enjoyed previously.

In a very real way, I see Joseph, not Brigham, as the modern Moses (and Brigham as the modern Joshua) – a very complex man who did great and marvelous things but who, in the end, was kept from leading his people into the promised land because his ego got the best of him and let his power go to his head. I absolutely love Joseph, from what I have read and felt about him – but he was a man, not a God, and I believe his death, while not justified in any way, absolutely was influenced greatly by his actions toward the end of his life.

A Very Short Tribute to Emma Smith

Joseph Smith was a complicated man, but, if I had to summarize him as concisely as possible, without using any religious words and without considering his prophetic role, I probably would say:

Joseph was an explorer who embraced experimentation and was open to trying almost anything that came to him.  

If I had to summarize Emma Smith as concisely as possible, I would say:

Emma was an amazing woman who was very different in personality than the husband she loved and supported with all her heart - and I believe she is guaranteed a place in Heaven, because she already has gone through Hell. 

Joseph Smith and Paul, the Apostle: A Short Comparison

I have spoken with more than a few non-Mormon Christians about their skepticism of Joseph Smith's claim to have seen a vision, and much of their concern is rooted in their belief that such claims are absurd and/or their disagreement with some of the doctrines he subsequently taught.  My response generally centers on the example of Paul, the early Christian apostle - whom they all accept as a prophet of God. 

1) I don't see any difference in unbelievability between the accounts of the individual visions.  Both of them were "fantastic" at the time - and the VAST majority of people who heard Paul didn't believe a word of it either, even as skilled an orator as Paul was. His travels and teachings are quite well-documented; his vision is his word alone. Period. In those ways (nature and acceptance level), there is no substantive difference between Joseph's and Paul's claims. 

2) There is serious disagreement among scholars as to whether or not any of the important details in the Bible (especially the Old Testament, but even the New Testament) are accurate to any measurable degree (the details, not some of the large events) - and that's not limited to just the miraculous claims. Therefore, it is FAR more debatable that the men described in the Bible were anything like their descriptions than it is about Joseph Smith - both the apologetic and the dismissive descriptions. 

3) Paul was a hardcore fanatic. He went from an extreme, Christian-killing Jew to an extreme, Jesus-preaching Christian. In other words, his basic personality didn't change in the slightest; only his religious orientation did.  To use modern examples, he makes Pres. Benson and Elder McConkie look tame in some ways - even though he also preached charity and was instrumental in some of the biggest changes in the early church. In many ways, Elder Packer is probably the closest we have now to a modern-day Paul - since he has said some really conservative, exclusionary things but also some really progressive, compassionate things. I am pretty sure Paul would be the focus of many posts written by mainline, liberal Protestants if he were a modern apostle - and I'm pretty sure many of them would not be flattering.  (I'm also pretty sure many evangelicals would not praise James - or even John, the Beloved - if his writings were presented outside the Bible.) 

My main point in this post is that Joseph Smith's claims and words are much more similar to Paul's than most people realize - particularly in how those claims and words were perceived in each time period by those who heard them.  My secondary point is that I'm sure many of the people who complain the most vocally about Joseph Smith would be complaining just as vocally about Paul - if he had lived in Joseph's time and not so long ago.

Why I Love and Honor Joseph Smith - and Emma

All of us are both saints and sinners. It's that internal paradox that is inherent in ALL of us that I think is most critical to understanding not only Joseph Smith but also each other.

For example, when I tell someone that the key to finding peace is within herself, I'm not saying that she is the problem - or that nobody else played a part of her current situation - or anything else like that. I'm simply saying that the first step toward peace and happiness is to realize that there are at least two (and often many more than two) ways to view anyone and interpret anything - and peace relies often on being able to let go of one's former view and realize that SHE, HERSELF, INDEPENDENT OF OTHERS has the ability to choose which view (*or views*) she will accept as "legitimate" or "true".

The following is my own opinion, but it highlights why I am at peace with Joseph on an intellectual level - personally:

Was Joseph a ego-maniac? Sure, at times.

Was Joseph incredibly humble? Sure, at times.

Was Joseph a liar? Sure, at times.

Was Joseph honest to a fault? Sure, at times. 

Was Joseph an opportunist? Sure, at times.

Was Joseph charitable and giving? Sure, at times.

Was Joseph a loyal friend - sometimes to a fault? Sure, at times (usually). 

Was Joseph both incredibly tender and hot-tempered? Sure, usually and at times.

Was Joseph inspired? Sure, fairly regularly.

Was Joseph a fallen mortal? Sure, at all times.

Was Joseph a prophet? Sure, and he acted properly as one most of the time.

I've studied enough of him to see him as an incredibly complex person - a saint and a sinner - with the heavenly and hellish fighting inside him. He's me on steroids - so I honor the saint on steroids (the Prophet) and intentionally refuse to judge the sinner on steroids (the man). He usually was not on those steroids, however, and I really have come to love the steroid-less man - and Emma, who stayed with him through the entire roller-coaster ride.

I have a hard time explaining how much I admire that woman.

A Very Personal Reflection about Joseph Smith (and Other Prophets)

I have absolutely no personal knowledge, based on actual experience, of how I would act or what I would do if I had the type of vision Joseph claimed to have had - especially if I had it when I was 14 years old. That experience can be analyzed in many, many ways, but I personally believe Joseph believed he saw God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ. I believe he really did have a vision as he described - even as the details he shared were different throughout his life.  I have had to learn to be humble when it comes to my beliefs and opinions. I've had to learn to not get compulsive and obsessive about some things about which I feel strongly - and that's something I haven't mastered yet. I am more defensive of Joseph than some, because I see myself in him in many ways - and I see myself making many of his mistakes (and worse) if I had been in his shoes and his situation.

I don't mean that arrogantly in any way. I don't mean that I am something special - or that God would call me to be a prophet or lead a new religious movement. That very concept scares me more than I can express - and I have no delusions that I could handle it. I'm quite sure I would have flamed out young and hard.

However, I KNOW I would have tried my hardest and been sincere throughout my successes and failures. I only hope I would have been as dedicated and resilient as he was - that I would have "endured to the end" as he did.

I'm not trying to convince anyone in this thread that Joseph was a prophet of God. Honestly, I'm not. That's not the point of this post. My reaction isn't to someone who says, "I just can't see it. I just don't think he was a prophet." This post primarily is to people that take someone in whom I see so much of myself and focus SOLELY on his weaknesses and mistakes and failures and shortcomings. It's not that I take it personally, per se, but rather that I want to defend someone for whom I feel a kinship of sorts - especially from descriptions that simply miss the chaotic nature of his time and reflect perspectives that simply didn't exist for him.

Let me say it this way: 

I don't think Joseph would be a good apostle right now - but I also am convinced that Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Monson would have been even greater failures in Joseph's shoes. Those men as they are now would be totally inappropriate for the founding of a new religion. Founding a new religion, especially amid intense persecution in a wild, frontier environment, requires exactly the type of man Joseph was - and God has to use those who can do what needs to be done in the time it needs to be done. Likewise, I believe Brigham Young couldn't have filled Joseph's role or Gordon's / Thomas' role, and not one of them could have filled Brigham's role.

I simply think we do each and every one of them a tremendous dis-service when we compare them to each other, because we generally miss their unique contributions in the focus on their weaknesses and over-estimate their abilities to be someone other than they are / were. Part of my view of Joseph (and Brigham) as a prophet is my recognition that he just might have been the ONLY person available at the time in that location who could have done what would be required - and my even deeper recognition that I need to thank God every single day that it wasn't me who was in that situation. I'm fairly certain I would have failed miserably - and, honestly, I'm not sure I know ANYONE closely in whom I am confident in their ability to succeed in doing what was required of Joseph and Brigham - and, by extension, Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Monson.

Joseph Smith Was Not Infallible, and He Would Be the First Person to Say So

If there is one prophet of the Restoration who would roll around screaming in his grave at the idea that he was infallible, it is Joseph Smith. It is SO easy to forget that he is the most chastised person in the D&C - and it's not close! If he was willing to record those chastisements - and if he was willing to say what he said often about his own failings, we are judging him by a vicious standard if we turn around and expect him to be some super-genius, infallible wonderkind. I think we owe it to him to recognize his faults but honor him regardless for all the extraordinary qualities he really did have.

Along those same lines:

Brigham Young had major issues as I look at him (and I do not believe a number of things he taught, most obviously, from my multiple posts about it, that the Priesthood ban was appropriate or of God), but, seriously, who else could have held the Church together in those hellish times? When I try to look at the big picture with a charitable eye, I thank God "Brother Brigham" was around to lead the Church when he did - even with the baggage we inherited as a result. I truly believe the Church would have shattered and disappeared without him - as it was threatening to do after Joseph's death.

Life is a two-edged sword, and it's very easy to criticize even those who did remarkable things - since nearly all who do remarkable things fail mightily before, during and after the remarkable. I've been a history teacher, and that is true throughout history. Those in the lead fall often, and the ones I admire are the ones who keep getting up and living a life guaranteed to knock them down eventually every time they rise. When you fall from greater heights, it's much more visible to those around you; when you get back up and climb again to even greater heights every, single, stinking time . . . I will be the last one to condemn.
 
Criticism of specifics? Absolutely fine, as long as it's done charitably and with humility. Dismissal and condemnation? Absolutely not.

Joseph Smith History 1:19 - Summarizing and Quoting Deity

As a natural parser, I have looked closely (minutely, with dictionary in hand) at JSH 1:19 to try to understand what it actually says, and I can say with confidence that I have never read a more concise yet comprehensive description of the apostasy and its practical effects than that verse. Contrary to what many have claimed, both inside and outside the Church, it is quite measured and focused - and brilliantly precise. I have read lengthy treatises on the topic, by Mormon scholars and by Protestant theologians (though the Protestant theologians obviously didn't use the word "apostasy"), and in all their writings I have not once read as powerful and comprehensive a treatise as I see in that one small verse.

He who wrote it was an intelligent and articulate but not classically educated man, so I choose to believe he was summarizing and quoting deity.

How Did Joesph View the Book of Mormon?

I don't think Joseph Smith understood the content of the Book of Mormon very well. Before anyone calls me a heretic for saying that, let me explain.

By not understanding it very well, I mean ONLY the actual content of the BofM. Much of what was taught back then about it was more generalities than specifics and doesn't really match the text very well - as it would have if he had studied it rigorously - or been like most authors and knew it inside and out. Ironically, his apparent lack of textual understanding of it is one of the things that leads me to accept that he translated it rather than having written it.

If we accept his general statements about visitations / visions, it seems to me that he learned some very basic, general things about it and the people it describes - but it doesn't appear he got an in-depth "tutorial" on it. In other words, it appears Moroni told him a few broad, sweeping things about the book and the people, but that most of the time they spent conversing each year was dedicated to other things he would need to know to magnify the overall calling God was giving him.

Personally, with what I've been able to glean about him and his personality, I just don't think he cared much about the Book of Mormon as a religious proof text - so he didn't study it intently to create / restore the core theology of Mormonism. I think that process was "other revelation" driven. I believe this for one major reason:

Frankly, most of the "heretical" doctrines of Mormonism aren't in the Book of Mormon and/or Pearl of Great Price. Many of the more "advanced" teachings are in the Doctrine & Covenants, but most of the truly unique concepts were taken from interpretations of the Bible - which is why, I think, Joseph once said that the main difference between Mormons and Protestants is that Mormons believe the Bible and Protestants don't.

I think he was MUCH more interested in re-establishing what he viewed as a pure Biblical theology than in using the Book of Mormon to do so - and I personally think that is pretty much indisputable. I think he saw the Book of Mormon as what some ancient prophets thought and taught, but I think he viewed its purpose MUCH more as a second witness of the Bible (as is stated explicitly in the book itself in at least two places) and a witness of his calling (as it was used in most early missionary work) than as a primary, doctrinal proof text.

I like that view, since I think it fits the book itself much better than using it to prove doctrine.

Exactly What Must Be 100% True or 100% False?

One of my biggest problems with human nature, in general, and the way that members, in particular, tend to interpret things is the tendency to read something applied to one thing or person and extrapolate it to everything or everyone else.

Let me give two examples to illustrate my point:

1) Oliver Cowdery was told how HE received a witness from the Spirit. HE felt a burning in HIS bosom, and HE experienced a stupor of thought in HIS mind. That passage says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how anyone else will or should recognize the influence of the Spirit in their own life - nothing, at all. However, members and missionaries alike tend to promise others that they will feel it in that exact same way. I rarely feel it that way, and I know others who rarely feel it that way, but thousands of people are being told that is how they can experience it. That really is a HUGE concern and pet peeve of mine.

2) Moroni 10:3-4 promises those who remember, read, ponder and pray that God will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon unto them - but it says absolutely nothing about how that will be done - how any particular reader will experience that manifestation. It also does NOT say in those verses that everyone who reads will "know" it is true; all it says is that the truth will be manifest somehow. One person might feel it is true; another one might sense it is true; another might have a classic Cowdery burning; one might have a powerful dream; one simply might feel compelled to continue reading it and be drawn into it inescapably; one might experience it in a way that is unimaginable to you and me. Only one of these "manifestations" match Oliver Cowdery's method of manifestation, but each and every one is "real" to the person involved.

President Hinckley didn't say, "Every single thing taught in the Church either is 100% true or else the Church is a fraud," nor did he say, "The Church is never wrong or else it is not of God." What he said, in essence, included three foundational claims: 

1) Joseph spoke with God (somehow); 

2) Moroni appeared to Joseph, who "translated" the Book of Mormon (somehow); and 

3) the Priesthood authority to perform eternal ordinances was restored (somehow). 

Either those three things happened (again, somehow) or they didn't. Either heavenly personages appeared to Joseph (somehow), or he made it up. They either are "real" or "fraudulent". Joseph either believed in his visions, or he lied about them intentionally. He either was sincere, or he was a fraud. That's essentially all Pres. Hinckley said in the quote.

To me, the crux of his comment is that either Joseph was telling the truth about the biggest things (the heavenly manifestations), or he was a fraud. Either he believed it, or he faked it. I can accept that, since I couldn't remain faithful if I was convinced he lied about those foundation things. There are lots and lots and lots of things that I believe are totally open to ambiguity and mistakes; the heavenly visitations/visions aren't among them - even though I think there are multiple, legitimate ways that those visitations could have occurred without being fraudulent.

My Daughter Is Going to the Temple for the First Time Today

This is a departure from my normal New Year's Resolution weekend posts, but our third daughter is going to the temple for the first time today. I have spent part of the evening talking with her about it, and she astounded me with a simple observation I want to share here.

I talked with her about how I view the temple ordinances as almost completely symbolic - and that there is great power for me in the symbolism and figurative nature of turning our hearts to our fathers and serving them in a symbolic way. I asked her if she understood what I mean by the difference between viewing ordinances as symbolic and thinking they are literally necessary as we currently perform them, and she said the following - to the best of my recollection:

It's like the Jews using circumcision and us using baptism now. That symbolism worked for them, but it doesn't work for us. Baptism works better.

She then added:

It's like when kids at school think we worship Joseph Smith because we sing "Praise to the Man". They only use "praise" as a religious term when they are talking about God, so they assume we don't worship God when we praise prophets. They just don't understand that it's ok to praise people for what they do and worship God. It's the meaning of the word to us that's important - the symbolism we see in it.

She's a great kid, and I'm proud of her. I'm not certain I've ever shared those examples with her directly, but they are two specific examples I have used in the past.

I'm glad she understands the concept of symbolism at this age, since I believe it will help her tremendously as she gets older and faces other things that often are difficult to reconcile in a more literal paradigm but have great power when viewed symbolically.