Warning--no analogy is perfect. Especially one originating in my mind. But there is something about the following that helps me explain why I believe in prophets even though they can be "wrong".
Parents aren't perfect. At least mine weren't. Yet I love my parents immensely. As a kid all I wanted to do was make my parents proud of me. They were great people in my eyes. (They still are--I just think the analogy works better if I'm using a parent/child relationship). I trusted them. I knew they wanted what was best for me. I knew that they knew things I didn't know. They had experienced things I hadn't, and could "see" things I couldn't from my vantage point. I even believe they received revelation and inspiration on behalf of our family. They taught me things of great value. They taught me truth--things that have made my life better and happier has a result.
Sometimes they were wrong. However, the things they got right far exceeded the wrong, so I never had to question whether or not following their teachings was ultimately leading me in the wrong direction or in the right direction.
No mortal alive today is perfect. In fact, only one who ever walked the earth was perfect--Jesus Christ. We trust in Him and in the Spirit who guides us into "all truth" (John 16:13). We can't look to mortals (prophets included) and expect to always get perfection. We can only look to Perfection to receive perfection. But by golly, I'm grateful God gave me my parents. And I'm grateful he gives us modern prophets too.
Sharing Time: Mormonism and The Moth
2 hours ago
Posts
12 comments:
Well put.
Our human nature tends to only see the bad things in people, and blinds us from seeing good. On the other hand, Christ didn't make instant judgments until He was able to see the whole picture (John 16-17).
Joseph Smith was open to show his weaknesses, D&C 3 is scripture that demonstrates that. Yet, he always strived to do his best.
This analogy shows how we can believe that he was a prophet, even though he wasn't perfect.
Nice analogy, CC.
If people worked half as hard to expose Joseph Smith's good traits as they did to expose his bad ones, he'd probably come off looking OK in the big picture, even to a non-LDS individual.
I agree with Tom. However, I believe that thinking non-Mormons absolutely must oppose Joseph Smith because either he is what he claims or he isn't. There's really not a lot of middle-of-the-road. If he is than one would be foolish and shortchanging oneself spiritually to ignore him. If he isn't...well...
I'm just saying that I totally understand the violent opposition toward him from outsiders and I would probably feel close to the same if I were not Mormon.
You know, it's interesting. When I was thinking out this analogy, I wasn't actually even thinking of Joseph Smith. I was actually thinking of more modern prophets in my own lifetime. But the analogy works just as well with Joseph.
I just didn't think of him, I suppose, since in my mind I generally separate him from the rest of the modern prophets and put him in his own category. After all, he was the dispensation opening, scripture producing, foundation laying, revolutionary prophet.
But while we're on the subject, I think Bruce raises an intriguing dilemma: How should "thinking people" approach Joseph Smith? I think it's really a good question, worthy of discussion.
It reminds me of something I read in Richard Bushman's author diary--"On the Road with Joseph Smith". Soon after his biography of Joseph Smith ("Rough Stone Rolling") came out, he was invited to a friendly meeting between evangelical and Mormon scholars who meet "once or twice a year to discuss differences and similarities".
He said that "the most telling question came from Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary and one of the guiding lights of these ongoing discussions. 'What am I to make of Joseph Smith?' he wanted to know. I offered this and that while he looked back rather uncomprehendingly. The trouble is that I don't know his categories. What boxes does he have in mind for locating Joseph? Unfortunately, Latter-day Saint scholars have not been particularly helpful to Mouw. We are so intent on making Joseph out as a true prophet, we have little to say to Mouw-like readers.
"A genius and maverick certainly, but where else does he fit? I am thinking gnostic right now since Joseph produced the books of Moses and Abraham that so closely resemble the pseudigraphic works of the four centuries around Christ's life. I made a plea for him to tolerate discursive explorations of Christian doctrine as positive indicators of religious vitality" (p. 119).
For the record, I have always believed that there is no middle ground in regards to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It's really quite an "either/or" proposition.
Bushman's experience with Mouw, however, has caused me to ponder if there are possibly other productive options for someone like him, who doesn't accept Joseph’s claims, but still wants to be respectful in interfaith dialogue (as opposed to being antagonistic).
Something else that's causing me to ponder: the difference between these "black and white" propositions (either he was a prophet or not), which I do believe, and the reality that much of our history and the way we view things isn't black and white at all, but many different shades of gray.
Thanks for posting this. This topic has come up recently in conversations I've had. This is the conclusion I came to as well. We don't worship the prophet. We worship Jesus Christ--and are grateful we have a prophet to help us navigate these turbulent times.
Thanks Amanda. I'm glad you found the analogy beneficial. It's been quite helpful for me in several recent conversations as well. The topic keeps coming up again and again and this really helps me explain what I feel is a very healthy and wise approach.
Two things come to mind. 1: I can't really bring myself to agree with bruce and say I totally agree with the violent opposition shown towards Joseph Smith...Christians in the early 1800's were also expected to follow the golden rule. Those who were violent in their opposition were simply poor examples of Christians. 2: (clean cut) I understand where your coming from with your saying there are many shades of grey...I just don't see it exactly that way. I feel like what we might consider some grey area is really just us not being able to see things perfectly as God does. PS: I like Tom's comment
see:
Follow the...
The premise of religion as a parent is probably spot on. Unfortunately those are dysfunctional parents and even though we love our (parents/religion)we must eventualy realize that we must leave our mother and father to grow, think and stand on our own.
Anonymous, what criteria are you using to determine dysfunction?
For example, just because my imperfect (but very dear) parents no longer make decisions for me since I'm now an independent adult (a "free agent" so to speak) doesn't mean that they've become dysfunctional.
Likewise, even though our expectations of religion can change and we're free to decide for ourselves what parts work for us or not as we follow the dictates of our own conscience, I wouldn't say that we "must eventually realize that we must leave" the faith. Perhaps some might feel better off leaving, but perhaps others might stay precisely in order to prevent dysfunction.
Concerning thinking for oneself versus conceding to religious authority, at least in the Mormon tradition, is still somewhat of a tension that continues to resonate today.
Post a Comment