13 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
It seems that many Gospel Principles could be construed as solutions provided by Joseph in an effort to reconcile the shortcomings or tragedies he saw in his family. No doubt this has been an attack on the foundation of the church. I see Joseph Smith’s call as a prophet being far more an education than an installment of any sort. In that sense, I would theorize that there was preparation in the shortcomings and tragedies that perhaps drove Joseph to delve into the questions and receive the revelations he did not only as answers for him, but especially for the work of redeeming the house of Israel that could be seen as having many parallels to Joseph’s life and work. |
What does that mean, the Church of Christ? Is that us? |
annegb (2), Yes, though that Church looked and behaved nothing like ours does today… |
Nasamomdele, |
I think that for faithful Mormons the examination if JSjr’s early family life was probably one of the more shocking aspects of RSR. Bushman makes it clear that the family struggled and family members were not blameless. This is not the picture of their family life that I had obtained in Sunday School and Seminary. On the idea of Joseph Smith Sr. having problems with alcohol: I find this to be plausible mainly because of the story of JSjr rejecting alcohol during the operation on his leg. We tend to paint this episode as a sort of premonition of the Word of Wisdom or perhaps that the family had strong values concerning it. To me it is more likely that he was terrified of alcohol because he had witnessed its effects on his father. I think the story of Joseph Smith Sr’s conversion and participation in the Church along with that of other Smith family members raises some questions about the role of lineage in Church leadership. Echoing the parallels with the Book of Mormon mentioned above, note how there was clearly an intention to pass the role of prophet from father to son as Lehi did to Nephi and from brother to brother (Nephi->Jacob, Joseph->Hyrum) which over time broke down somewhat in both the Book of Mormon and in the LDS Church. |
random John: Very good insight about why Joseph Smith may have refused the alcohol for his leg operation. I actually have drafted another post about Joseph and alcohol that should be up in a while. But I think your argument makes a lot of sense to me. |
For one of my wife’s uncles, the harshness of Bushman’s criticism of Joseph Smith Sr. is a really hard pill for him to swallow. (To be clear, he thinks it is a harsh criticism. I do not.) He considers it to be the major flaw in the book. I think that it has less to do with the fact that he does not believe it is true, but that it conflicts with everything else he has heard in Church about the Prophet’s father. |
I have heard similar opinions voiced about Bushman’s treatment of Joseph Smith Sr., and those are frustrating things for me to hear. I thought he had a very difficult job to do in describing a broken man, and I felt very saddened by the narrative. But I think it was an immensely valuable element of Joseph’s story. I remember reading the story of his baptism and Joseph’s reaction (quoted above), and I was puzzled by Joseph’s reaction — a complete emotional meltdown — until later in the book when I learned more of his father’s struggles. |
Another aspect of the leg surgery story is that rather than drinking the alcohol, Joseph asked that his father hold him. Not only is he showing his contempt for alcohol but he’s also putting his father in the position of holding him during the surgery and seeing the pain he is in and knowing that he’s experiencing it to teach his father a lesson. This is perhaps a bit manipulative on JSjr’s part, assuming I’m not totally off base here. It also makes for a more interesting story than what we usually hear about this episode. |
Dan Ellsworth: in response to your comment “That is not the response of a fraud.” First, I totally accept Joseph Smith Jr’s prophetic calling, having received a divine witness the truthfulness of both his first vision and the Book of Mormon. However, I disagree with your statement that a fraud cannot exhibit genuine and strong emotions. I’m not saying that a fraud would necessarily be acting in such a display either. Because if a fraud were to knowingly manufacture their own religion/sect (or new denomination of Christianity), seeing their father turn over a new leaf and embrace it could supposedly generate such a level of honest emotions. One point is that the fraud may be internally moved by something _different_ than what the outside observer is assuming, but that the emotions displayed are real and genuine. Another is that the genuine emotion dcould actually be there, and for the obvious reason, but is not necessarily a logical proof of the truthfulness or falseness of the fraud’s overall endeavor. Those who perpetrate fraud, or even outright evil, can still maintain proper feelings in other aspects of their lives, sometimes through compartmentalization. And in the history of religious frauds, it seems as if they often truly believe that which they themselves created. And sometimes, they see the created or manufactured thing as a “good” or “true” thing, based on the good that it brings about. Knight’s story about Joseph’s reaction to his father’s baptism increases my respect for Joseph Jr and Joseph Sr. However, it’s not something I’d trumpet as apologetic evidence. |
Bookslinger, I see what you’re saying, and I would agree that Joseph’s response cannot be taken as apologetic evidence. But I do consider it strong evidence that he believed in the ordinance, meaning the worst that can be said about him is that he was delusional, not a conscious fraud at that point. |
I do not cast stones at anyone, but someone weeping because their father was affected by something that may or may not be true is not proof of the “religion” being true. There are many people who believe things whole heartedly that are nowhere close to true. My problem with the LDS church is that the “New” bible written by smith has thousands of direct contridictions with the old and new test, bible. I do not think that Mr. Smith choose to be misled as most LDS members have not decided to be misled. It is just a sad part of life and the acts of the devil to mislead people. The devil has alway taken a small portion of truth and thrown a small bit of falsehood into the truth to corrupt it, and this is my thoughts on Mr. Smith. I believe he was well meaning, but that alone does not make you hit the mark. |
WDG – Which version and which translation and which editing of the Bible? And it’s highly unusual to compare the veracity of one data point against the presumed veracity of a second data point… |