Are Church Leaders (Past&Present) Acting in Good Faith?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Who Knows wrote:So, what do you all think about the initial leaders of the church - Joseph Smith, BY, etc. Were they acting in good faith?

Let me start with Joseph Smith. I'm torn, because I think he certainly started out sincere and honestly believing that he had been called of God; later, however, some incidents suggest to me that he might have lost those innocent early days and went off the deep end (i.e., polygamy, theocracy, etc.). Bottom line, I just don't know. I think in the beginning he was very sincere, but by the end things had gotten so out of hand that even he realized he had gone too far. So what did he leave us? What doctrine was from God and what was from him? That's impossible to answer, in my opinion.

Now on to Brigham Young. I also think he was a rabid and sincere believer in the beginning. But, once he put a theocracy in place in Utah, I think power corrupted him a bit. I'm not saying he was a bad guy, just that his absolute power led him to think more about himself and keeping his power than those over whom he presided. I think he was also responsible for creating the frenzied atmosphere and paranoia that led to the Reformation period, MMM, Utah War, etc.

John Taylor -- very sincere and a rabid believer, willing to die for polygamy.

Wilford Woodruff -- very sincere, but a pragmatist willing to see that some mistakes had been made and could be corrected without destroying the Church (i.e., polygamy and the law of adoption).

Lorenzo Snow -- don't know much about him, but seemed sincere.

JFSmith -- the original TBM; very sincere, overcame many bad habits, but too much a chameleon when he had to publicly 'face the music' in the U.S. Senate hearings. Put into practice many odd policies and beliefs we have today. Perhaps micromanaged the lives of the saints too much, and made public absolutist statements (like the "Origin of Man") that just sound stupid today.

Heber J. Grant -- started out sincere (admitting he had never seen Christ -- a boo-boo back in those days), but I get the feeling he later turned somewhat dishonest in trying to ferret out LDS polygamists, inadvertantly causing the Fundamentalist movement to blossom.

George Albert Smith -- seemed very sincere and sensitive (only GA to be hospitalized for mental illness while in office); I wish he would have preached in public what he would admit in private letters (one that comes to mind is his disavowing the whole "when the prophet has spoken, the debate is over" idea).

David O. McKay -- seemed truly sincere and kind; often followed his principles rather than the practicalities -- although tried hard to help black members and investigators, he avoided the big issue of removing priesthood ban.

JFielding Smith -- pretty much incapacitated during short time he was president, but a rabid TBM.

Harold B. Lee -- I think he was more practical than sincere -- went after blacks and gays, which brings him down on my list. Not president very long.

SWKimball -- very sincere and the most kind person to serve as LDS president, in my opinion. Had some weird ideas about sex and race, but it was more innocent than malicious, in my opinion. Had the guts to take on the priesthood ban once and for all. Cared very much for people, but too judgmental when it came to folks he considered "sinful."

ETBenson -- a bit of a nut, but harmless by the time he became president.

HWHunter -- sincere guy, but only around 9 months.

GBH -- after Joseph Smith and BY, I think GBH has had more influence over the Church than anyone (he's basically been in charge for the past 25 years). I think, by and large, he is sincere, but too PR-minded to really take tough positions (and a little too eager to take unimportant positions).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

Thanks for the summary Rollo - very helpful.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Let me start with Joseph Smith. I'm torn, because I think he certainly started out sincere and honestly believing that he had been called of God;


Ok. Let's say Joseph Smith did not receive an actual visit from god and Jesus. Let's say that he did not actually have ancient gold plates.

Now - could he have been acting in good faith?
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Who Knows wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Let me start with Joseph Smith. I'm torn, because I think he certainly started out sincere and honestly believing that he had been called of God;

Ok. Let's say Joseph Smith did not receive an actual visit from god and Jesus. Let's say that he did not actually have ancient gold plates.

Now - could he have been acting in good faith?

Given the disparity in the details of various First Vision accounts given over the years by Joseph Smith, I think the experience was probably a combination (and not necessarily just as the official version says). Which goes to my comment that Joseph began very sincere (having some kind of spiritual experience around 1820), but later changes to the story may reflect that sincerity changing. Just a thought.

As for the gold plates, I think he was sincere in claiming to physically have them (at least at one time). I wonder if he ever got them back after Martin Harris lost the 116 pages. Perhaps the Book of Mormon story is simply allegory or parable intended to teach gospel principles, rather than authentic history of actual peoples. Joseph claimed to experience many supernatural events; I personally have never had any, but I suspect that it would be difficult to determine which supernatural events were physically real and which were simply visionary.

If Joseph lied about having a spiritual experience that led to his calling or possessing the gold plates, then, yes, he acted in "bad faith." But if he honestly believed that both happened (which I think he did), then it is "good faith."
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Given the disparity in the details of various First Vision accounts given over the years by Joseph Smith, I think the experience was probably a combination (and not necessarily just as the official version says). Which goes to my comment that Joseph began very sincere (having some kind of spiritual experience around 1820), but later changes to the story may reflect that sincerity changing. Just a thought.

As for the gold plates, I think he was sincere in claiming to physically have them (at least at one time). I wonder if he ever got them back after Martin Harris lost the 116 pages. Perhaps the Book of Mormon story is simply allegory or parable intended to teach gospel principles, rather than authentic history of actual peoples. Joseph claimed to experience many supernatural events; I personally have never had any, but I suspect that it would be difficult to determine which supernatural events were physically real and which were simply visionary.

If Joseph lied about having a spiritual experience that led to his calling or possessing the gold plates, then, yes, he acted in "bad faith." But if he honestly believed that both happened (which I think he did), then it is "good faith."


I think the disparity of the FV accounts and the late date at which they were reported, coupled with the Smith family's collective inability to remember such a seminal event, point to the FV being a later add-on rather than a related memory. All the family accounts agree that Moroni's visit was the commencement of things. Yeah, it's possible he really did have such an experience, but the known facts contradict the account given.

As for the plates, it's difficult to say. If there were actual plates, the statements of the witnesses shouldn't be so shrouded in mysticism (spiritual eyes, and all that). But maybe he did have some props.

It seems to me that a believer would have to separate the visionary, prophetic Joseph Smith from the one who used his position for sex and wealth, and I think that's what Rollo has done. I tend to see both halves of Joseph as part of the same thing.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:But if he honestly believed that both happened (which I think he did), then it is "good faith."


But if both didn't happen, then could he still have acted in good faith? (I'm not so much interested in if they did actually happen - we all have our own opinions - but if they didn't happen, is there any way that he could be considered to have acted in good faith?)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Runtu wrote:I think the disparity of the FV accounts and the late date at which they were reported, coupled with the Smith family's collective inability to remember such a seminal event, point to the FV being a later add-on rather than a related memory. All the family accounts agree that Moroni's visit was the commencement of things. Yeah, it's possible he really did have such an experience, but the known facts contradict the account given.

This is certainly possible. I personally think something happened to Joseph pre-Moroni, but possibly not to the grand extent as set out in the PofGP.

As for the plates, it's difficult to say. If there were actual plates, the statements of the witnesses shouldn't be so shrouded in mysticism (spiritual eyes, and all that).

The official statements and others seem to outweigh the mystic ones, in my opinion, but at the same time anything can happen with the supernatural.

But maybe he did have some props.

Yes, this is possible.

It seems to me that a believer would have to separate the visionary, prophetic Joseph Smith from the one who used his position for sex and wealth, and I think that's what Rollo has done. I tend to see both halves of Joseph as part of the same thing.

I guess this is what allows me to raise criticisms of the Brethren and their actions. I honestly don't view them any differently than other persons or LDS members: the Brethren are human and probably make mistakes all the time, as we all do. They, more often than not, are sincere and try to do what they think is right, as well all do, but screw up just as often as we do. The common practice in Mormonism never to say anything negative about the Brethren or what they do, in my opinion, borders on idolatry and has no place in any true church. I have no problem with GA's being just as 'human' and I am, with all the weakness and mistakes that come with humanity. So, when Joseph screws up, I have no problem seeing that mistake and even criticizing it, without at the same time destroying my faith in things I consider much greater than Joseph. I don't think any human can be separated in two halves -- good and bad -- we are all (Joseph included) the sum of those parts. TBM's would be much better off if they took the Brethren down from the pedestal and looked at them as we would anyone else -- imperfect beings muddling through a life full of mistakes and still trying to help a few folks along the way.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Runtu wrote:I think the disparity of the FV accounts and the late date at which they were reported, coupled with the Smith family's collective inability to remember such a seminal event, point to the FV being a later add-on rather than a related memory. All the family accounts agree that Moroni's visit was the commencement of things. Yeah, it's possible he really did have such an experience, but the known facts contradict the account given.

This is certainly possible. I personally think something happened to Joseph pre-Moroni, but possibly not to the grand extent as set out in the PofGP.

As for the plates, it's difficult to say. If there were actual plates, the statements of the witnesses shouldn't be so shrouded in mysticism (spiritual eyes, and all that).

The official statements and others seem to outweigh the mystic ones, in my opinion, but at the same time anything can happen with the supernatural.

But maybe he did have some props.

Yes, this is possible.

It seems to me that a believer would have to separate the visionary, prophetic Joseph Smith from the one who used his position for sex and wealth, and I think that's what Rollo has done. I tend to see both halves of Joseph as part of the same thing.

I guess this is what allows me to raise criticisms of the Brethren and their actions. I honestly don't view them any differently than other persons or LDS members: the Brethren are human and probably make mistakes all the time, as we all do. They, more often than not, are sincere and try to do what they think is right, as well all do, but screw up just as often as we do. The common practice in Mormonism never to say anything negative about the Brethren or what they do, in my opinion, borders on idolatry and has no place in any true church. I have no problem with GA's being just as 'human' and I am, with all the weakness and mistakes that come with humanity. So, when Joseph screws up, I have no problem seeing that mistake and even criticizing it, without at the same time destroying my faith in things I consider much greater than Joseph. I don't think any human can be separated in two halves -- good and bad -- we are all (Joseph included) the sum of those parts. TBM's would be much better off if they took the Brethren down from the pedestal and looked at them as we would anyone else -- imperfect beings muddling through a life full of mistakes and still trying to help a few folks along the way.


You know, Rollo, it amazes me that you have been so vilified in certain circles. The church is fortunate to have thoughtful believers like you; yeah, I know that certain types would have us believe you're a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I'm impressed that you have been able to find a comfortable place within Mormonism without sacrificing your personal integrity.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Who Knows wrote:But if both didn't happen, then could he still have acted in good faith?

My use of "good faith" refers to what was in Joseph's head -- did he honestly believe those events happened? My opinion is that he did; ergo, my belief that he acted in "good faith." Whether they actually happened does not bear on this, in my opinion. However, if Joseph, in his head, knew they did not occur, then I agree it is "bad faith."
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Post by _MormonMendacity »

I think he was dishonest. There are too many discrepancies in Joseph's stories to Martin, acquaintenances, friends and family to believe he acted in good faith about the Book of Mormon. I doubt he ever believed his story about being visited by angels and then Elohim and Jesus.

None of that is to say that he didn't have spiritual experiences or couldn't and didn't put himself into spiritual trances. But it is too much a stretch for me that he actually thought he had golden plates. All the hiding he claimed he had to do of them destroys for me his belief and assertions that they actually were real.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Runtu wrote:You know, Rollo, it amazes me that you have been so vilified in certain circles. The church is fortunate to have thoughtful believers like you ....

Thanks, dude. I consider myself open-minded, not only to alternative ideas but to the certainty that we (in and out of the Church) know so very little.

... yeah, I know that certain types would have us believe you're a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I'm impressed that you have been able to find a comfortable place within Mormonism without sacrificing your personal integrity.

Again, thanks. Perhaps my relaxed attitude about Mormon history and lack of fear about its 'warts' is my way of dealing with troublesome questions. But it sure makes it easy for me to see no problem with voicing dissent, or criticize actions taken by past and current Brethren, or avoid the hero-worship so many TBM's exhibit toward Church leaders, or question everything I hear and finding the answer for myself. in my opinion, in the end my salvation or existence in the hereafter is between me and God, not any other middleman. I am entitled to inspiration or discernment or revelation just as much as anyone else. I know that kind of an attitude is not conducive to "order" and correlated management, but it sure is liberating.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Post Reply