Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Oh brother. (Wake up, Sleeping in EQ, and pay attention here:) Those quotes are obviously about the speculation in this thread (and the salivation in the LDS community), and not specifically about anything in the Bushman book. Unfortunately I don't have your talent for divining what's in a book without reading it. Also, I said in one of my early posts that he is not the first to generate this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth among Mormons. I believe my words were to the effect: "Every generation has a few."
It's no red herring. The speculation in this thread is wildly out of harmony with what's in the D&C, and I'm criticizing it. That's a perfectly legimate position.
Bushman's book may be an absolutely accurate portrayal of the prophet. I simply have no way of knowing until I read it, and even then there is much that I suppose I must take his word on. But the crazy suggestions that it has led to in this thread deserve to be challenged. Mormons are all too eager to accept yet another volume of the "real story" behind the church, and in the process step all over the lessons in the scriptures themselves.
|
Tex's response to this thread shows how fundamentalist Mormons, just as evangelical Christians desire to be instructed how to think.
In such event, members are told their leaders of are near perfect, saintly men, who would never make a mistake or lead them astray, when in fact the leaders are and were basically good people, with normal passions, strengths and frailties.
It is interesting that a person such as Tex would rely upon scripture to describe the character of people.
First, as I observe there are two or three types of scripture, narrative, directed dogma, and poetic praise, in addition to wisdom literature. Nowhere in any description is any genre devised to provide biographical information, except in the slightest of detail.
Why would any person suppose to know the character of Joseph Smith based on a reading of the Doctrine and Covenants? The D&C is not designed to biographical, but is more akin to a premodern Handbook of General Instructions. It's a dictionary. It's directed dogma, and without the historical underpinnings can be very boring to read.
Second, any Church publication regarding its leaders will be designed to support their authority and credibility. I don't say this is a bad thing, but necessarily the Church will omit anything harmful, unless a lesson can be taught. Why does the Church wisely recommend that leaders not refer to talking about past sins? So other members might not be tempted to justify their own.
By the foregoing process, members necessarily receive a very inaccurate and incomplete picture of who leaders really are. When we discover a Prophet would drink liquor on the golf course, we become shocked. When we discover a Primary President and her Counselor led a gay relationship, we are dismayed. How can this be?
Well, the Lord is more Deistic than we can imagine. Agency is the answer to most of these dilemmas. And I don't believe God immediately removes unrighteous leaders. The Old Testament story of Eli and his sons predating Samuel is an example of that. That illustration is there to show us, God will tolerate signficant misdeeds from his leaders before HE removes them.
The difference between God's organization and any other organization staffed by mankind is that once appointed, the general membership should not take upon itself to remove the leadership.
The danger in hagiographic material is the misplaced worship of leaders who may be just as frail as the people they are asked to lead. Leaders simply display a willingness and skillsets to guide people. That is all. There is no implication of superior morality in leadership skillsets. Just a different skillset. If our worship is to remain of truth and Divinity, we need to remember, no matter what sins our leaders exhibit, their good works remain praiseworthy, but they are not perfect nor gods.