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.

Assumptions about Scriptural Stories: Teaching Children to Think for Themselves

When I got home from work a few years ago, my second daughter immediately called me in to where she was studying for Seminary and asked me to help her understand something. In Seminary that morning, they watched a little video clip about John 4 - the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, and my daughter was confused about something in it. Before the video clip played, the students were asked to look for what the scene said about the woman's sin, but my daughter didn't see anything about sin in the clip - or in the chapter itself when she read it again tonight to see what she missed. She assumed the sin they were supposed to see was adultery, but she just couldn't see that as being said in the story.

She asked me two things:

1) if there was sin implied in the story;

2) if not, why the video would ask them to look for it.

I told her, not for the first time, that we tend to read into things (not just scriptures) whatever fits our own perspective and assumptions - that, in a story about a woman who had five previous husbands and currently lives with a man who is not her husband, we assume adultery without reading carefully. We talked about how it would be easy for this woman not to be an adulteress - that, perhaps, she was an older woman who simply had had five husbands die and didn't want to have that happen again with the man with whom she lived at the time. Maybe there was no sex involved at all, especially if they both were old enough to be near the end of their lives. Jesus didn't "call her to repentance" in anything he said, and adultery never was mentioned in any way. Furthermore, even if there was sex involved in the current relationship, that probably would have been fornication, not adultery - given only what is in the story itself.

She asked if the sin might be lying about her situation, but when I pointed out that the woman had answered simply, directly and honestly, she saw that immediately. ("Go get your husband." "I have no husband." "You are telling the truth, since you have had five husbands in the past and aren't married to the man with whom you live now.")

I told her the people who made the video simply accepted their assumptions and the implications that made sense to them - that they didn't think about it critically and credit multiple possibilities.

Before I had time to leave the room, she looked up at me and said:

"Wait, dad. After this, she went to everyone and told them what had happened - and they believed her and went to Jesus to be taught by him. They wouldn't have done that if she had been an adulterer, would they - especially with five marriages?" 

I congratulated her on seeing that possibility, and she said, before I could say it:

"I know. Don't take verses all by themselves. Read the context before you decide what they mean."

I then told my third daughter to get to bed. She asked if she could finish reading the scriptures for the night, and I said fine - as long as she was in bed in five minutes. She looked me in the eye, grinned, and said:

"I can't read the scriptures in five minutes if I'm actually trying to understand them. I need to read and think about each sentence, don't I?"

I love my kids. 

It isn't easy, but it's important to teach our kids how to deal with things that don't make sense to them - and how to think about and try to understand for themselves what they read and hear.

The daughters about whom I am talking were 17 and 14 at the time - and they didn't get this way overnight.

We Need Holes in Our Hearts

We teach of the need to have hearts that are open to being filled. 

Hearts without holes can't be filled.

"The whole need not a physician, but the sick."

I thank God regularly that I have not had many trials that I know others have had, but I am grateful that my heart has had holes that needed to be filled and that God (and others, as His hands) has tended to those holes, in various ways.

My primary purpose in much of my interaction with others is an attempt simply to help fill holes in other hearts.  I might not be able to be a curer in most cases, but I can try to be a healer. 

Priesthood Keys: A Chain Holding Copies of One Master Key that Unlocks Multiple Views

Morgan wrote a post on By Common Consent last year entitled "Keys" - about the place of that word and concept in Mormon vocabulary.  I recommend it highly.

My comment in that thread is below: 

It's interesting how such a simple concept as a key can be so profound to different people in different ways, as evidenced by its relevance today in ways that would have been unimaginable to the ancient people who wrote about keys. 

I like the framework of opening and closing, but I also like the purpose of most openings.  It's one thing to talk about opening a door (or gate) in order to enter a room (or restricted area), but it's another thing entirely to talk about opening a door or gate with the purpose of seeing / experiencing what is inside the room or restricted area.  In other words, keys, primarily, aren't about getting into a locked space; rather, at the core, they are about access to something of value - whether that be gold or an elite group or solitude or safety or increased light and knowledge.  It's not the room that is the focal point of having keys; it's what is inside the room and the benefit of what's inside the room. 

That's easy to forget that in the myopia of "getting into the Celestial kingdom" - or any other location.  In Mormon theology, the ultimate destination is a condition - and the key generally gets someone on the path and allows her to walk along the proper path - having her condition changed as she walks.  I believe, therefore, that life's journey is comprised of a series of keys - and, in a real way, I believe the final destination has no key and no entrance,  Rather, it is where someone ends up after all the gates have been opened and the veils parted and the realization hits that she was "there" all along.  Thus, theoretically, there is one key chain holding copies of the same master key. 

At least, that view works for me right now. 

A Response to "Children Cant' Dress Immodestly"

At By Common Consent, Matthew wrote a post in 2012 entitled, "Children Can't Dress Immodestly".  I disagreed strongly with his premise and the post itself, so I wrote the following comment:

Modesty is based on the concept of moderation – in all things. While I agree with much of what is said in the OP, it is more than just a bit ironic to attack one version of modesty in an completely immodest manner. Using one inaccurate extreme (“Children can’t dress immodestly.”) to attack another inaccurate extreme (“Children who expose their shoulders are sluts.”) is no more modest than the extreme being attacked. It simply is the other extreme of the immodesty coin.  

Again, I agree with the concern about how modesty is taught in our culture, especially the obsession over narrowing it exclusively to clothing and females, but this post is no more modest than what it attacks. I would love to read a modest response to such an important issue.

Matthew responded with the following comment:

You’ve created a false equivalency rather than responding to the argument and I know you can do better because I’ve seen you do better. If you want to explain with examples why you believe children can be immodest, you are welcome to do so. If you want to explain why you believe my statement is extreme you should do it.

At the time, I felt I would need to write an entire counter-post in order to explain why I believed the post was extreme, so I didn't respond in a comment.  I thought of writing an official response for a while but never got around to it.  Two weeks later, Paul wrote a responding post on "Real Intent" - and it expressed my concerns very well. 

I came across that discussion again recently and decided today to post the link to Paul's article as my own official response to the idea that children can't be immodest, even though it has been three years since the original post.  It is a bit lazy of me, but Paul's post said almost everything I would have said in a post of my own. 

With that LONG introduction, here is the link:

In Defense of "The Orange Shirt"

The Book of Mormon As a Catalyst for an Acceptance of Personal Revelation

Someone asked me in a more private setting about what I've written regarding the way the Book of Mormon opens the door for people to accept and experience personal revelation - and why that is so important.  The following is the specific question he asked and my response to it: 

I do have a question about one specific line in one of your posts: "It [the Book of Mormon] also opens a conduit to seek personal revelation in personal areas." How have you found that works, exactly? Again, I would assume that revelation would not come directly from the words of the book itself, since oftentimes we're seeking personal revelation about topics that the Book of Mormon simply doesn't address. So what's the connection between the Book of Mormon and that conduit of personal revelation?

Most people are not taught to ask God for specific answers to specific questions, so teaching people to ponder God's mercy throughout history and then to pray for a specific answer to a specific question ("Are these things true?") opens the door for them to continue to ask God for answers to questions once they feel He has answered them the first time. It's not just a one-time thing. In our theology, it leads to the concept of on-going and personal revelation - and praying about the Book of Mormon often is the first step in that process for many people.

It's not exactly how it worked for me, since I grew up with an acceptance of the principles of on-going and personal revelation and didn't need that catalyst personally, but I have seen it work that way for lots of other people.

You might want to consider that aspect - that, if someone grows up with an acceptance of something, "gaining a witness of it" can be very different than having an extraordinary experience that teaches it for the first time. I think we teach many things as happening for everyone in the exact same way, and, in doing so, miss the complexity of humanity and the idea that God speaks to us in our own language, according to our own understanding. I'd rather teach a principle and let people experience things themselves.

Input about the Apostles from Someone Who Knows

I happened to fall into a conversation within the past eighteen months, in person (face-to-face), with someone who has had the opportunity to talk directly with the top leadership of the Church about issues of instruction and ministry. I didn't know this about the person when we started to talk. (I'm being intentionally vague, so as to not give away any detail about this person or their situation. I don't want any particular detail to influence anyone's judgment of what was said, since I believe what was said was completely accurate and the speaker totally trustworthy - but more detail might bias some people. I simply will say that this person is not a "church leader" of any kind.)

I want to share a few things I was told in our conversation:

1) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency understand that their words in General Conference normally are generalized and not new - or profound in a new way, speaking generally. This is because they do not want to be misunderstood - as much by the membership of the Church as by non-members. They are aware of how much their words tend to be heard subjectively and how much they tend to get distorted once they leave their mouths - again, by people inside and outside the Church.

2) They almost all value an ecumenical approach to religion and religious conversation over a confrontational approach - even though they almost all believe what they believe very strongly. They all believe there is good, and even great outside the LDS Church - and even things that are unique and worthy of emulation and adoption, outside the LDS Church - and they all lament the lack of charity in the way many members speak to and about other people. Some of their most recent talks have been a direct address to this concern - but they tend to value teaching and testifying over pronouncements of command from the pulpit (again, given how many members tend to turn even non-command into command).

3) They almost all want multiple voices to be heard in church, as long as those voices are respectful and not disruptive or harmful. They don't all share similar views about many things; they are open with each other and in council about those differences; they practice the council model and wish the membership would listen more when they ask them to practice that model, as well. (in a nutshell, listening to others before reaching decisions and conclusions)

4) A lower percentage of 70's understand all of the above, and that rule extends naturally down the leadership chain.

How the Book of Mormon Works for and Speaks to Me

I find it fascinating to see how the Book of Mormon was used in the early days of the Church - and it is interesting that it was used exactly like a friend once said he saw it "work" on his mission. ("So when people read the Book of Mormon for the first time (those that didn't reject it outright because it was outside of the Bible), it did kind of open the door to additional scripture, personal revelation, and the rest of the gospel.")

I love the Book of Mormon for a number of reasons, but I've never had a burning in the bosom feeling about it. I've prayer for that type of experience, back when I was younger and didn't realize that's now how God speaks to me, personally.  I just love what it teaches and the feeling of attachment I have to it. I also am intrigued by what some key passages say about its purpose - and those passages don't say what we emphasize so much right now in the Church.

1) It was written to help people believe the Bible. That is stated directly as the primary purpose in Mormon 7 - especially verses 8-9. In other words, it is a second witness - not a first witness - and it was used in the early church to help them understand and believe the Bible better and more fully, not as the primary witness of Jesus or the central scriptural canon of our theology that tends to be our focus now. (It's interesting to note that nearly all of our truly unique doctrines are from the Bible, not the Book of Mormon.)

2) It was written to help people accept that God will be merciful to them personally - by remembering His mercy throughout history to others. This is the central message of Moroni 10:3-5 - and we tend to cut the heart out of that passage when we breeze past verse 3 in order to get to verses 4-5. We literally change Moroni's admonition when we make it nothing more than, "Pray about the Book of Mormon and ask if it is true." That's not what the passage actually asks people to do - at least, not everything it asks them to do.

That's how I see the Book of Mormon, and it works for me - even though, again, I've never had a distinctly powerful manifestation of it being a factual, historical record (even as I accept it as such as my default view but am fine with it being inspired fiction, if you will).  My connection is intellectual (really studying slowly and carefully what is written in it), emotional (many of the stories and how I feel while reading it), observational (seeing the effect it has had on others), spiritual (the insights and theological framework it has given me), etc.

Our Bodies Are Temples: Dealing with Mental and Emotional Illnesses and Issues

I believe deeply in the concept of our bodies being temples and, thus, that we need to take care of them in every way possible.  I recognize that I have not followed this counsel well at certain times in my life, since I have been overweight for extended periods of time since graduating from college many years ago, but I do believe in it.

As evidenced by the number of posts I've written here about various mental and emotional issues, I believe just as deeply that treating our bodies as temples includes taking care of chemical imbalances, which means, in many cases, for people with depression and other similar issues, using proper medication - even as medication might not be needed for others or needed long-term.

Some people still attribute mental and emotional issues to evil spirits.  I can agree that there might be evil spirits at work in some cases and not have a problem with suggestions for prayer and Priesthood blessings - but only as long as the type of comprehensive, balanced approach being advocated by phrases like "taking care of your body" includes professional counseling, medication, diet, etc. in an attempt to pinpoint exactly what the issues are for each individual.

If any approach discourages trying counseling, medication, diet, etc. and focuses exclusively on "spiritual causes", I reject it without hesitation.

For that reason, I was ecstatic to hear Elder Holland speak in General Conference so directly and clearly about depression and the need to do more than just try harder or just exercise more faith.  God bless him for addressing such a common ailment in the way that he did. 

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.