This post is the second in a series
about Joseph Smith and the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. If you have
not already read my first post, please read it here.
My hope and prayer for my last post and this post is twofold: (1) for those who
are unfamiliar with the origin story of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that they will desire to
learn more and accept the invitation to do so and (2) for those who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
that their testimonies of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the
restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ will be shored up and fortified – in
particular for those who, in light of recent publicity and scrutiny over some
of the less talked about facets of Joseph Smith’s history, may be struggling
with their testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
In my first post, I primarily tackled
my first objective, in which I provided a basic summary of Joseph Smith’s
history and the message of the restored Church and gospel of Jesus Christ.
I referred to this basic summary as “
Joseph
Smith 101.”
And now I turn to my second objective.
This post is very long (you have been warned!), but I am hopeful that it
will be helpful to someone.
Joseph Smith – Advanced
Topics
There is, of course, much more to
Joseph Smith’s history than what I described in “
Joseph
Smith 101.” Each of the bulletpoints in that post could have their
own blog post (or in some cases, several blog posts). In addition, there
is much more to Joseph Smith’s history that is tangential to the basic message
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some of this
“tangential” material, as I’ll call it here, is faith promoting and supports
the assertion that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, much of the tangential
material is benign, and some of this tangential material is difficult for even
faithful members of the Church to understand and is often pointed to as
evidence that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. I’ll refer to this latter
category as the “Advanced Topics.” For one reason or another,
[i] these
Advanced Topics have received increased attention in recent years. As
part of this development, the Church has been more open about these details
than they have in the more recent past
[ii] and
have published several essays on their website addressing some of these topics.
Some of the Advanced Topics include the details surrounding
Joseph
Smith’s polygamy, some of the details surrounding the exact process of
Joseph Smith’s
translation
of the Book of Mormon, the
translation
of the Book of Abraham, the
various
accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,
Joseph Smith’s financial leadership, and Joseph Smith’s experiences as a youth
in treasure hunting, among others.
It is not my intent to discuss at
length each of the Advanced Topics. As I will discuss in more detail
below, I personally believe that these Advanced Topics do not invalidate the
claims I discussed in “
Joseph
Smith 101,” and I am willing to civilly discuss any of the specific
topics with anyone who would like to know how I personally reconcile a
particular Advanced Topic with my faith.
[iii] But
for this post, I want to discuss the Advanced Topics more generally and share
some of my own personal story and some of the principles that have helped me to
arrive at the point of acknowledging and accepting some of the stickier points
in the Advanced Topics while maintaining my belief that Joseph Smith was a
prophet of God who did everything described in “
Joseph
Smith 101.”
My Story
Because of success with the promise in
the Book of Mormon described in “
Joseph
Smith 101,” (i.e., Moroni’s promise in
Moroni 10:4-5)
it is not uncommon to hear members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints proclaim: “I know the Book of Mormon is true.” “I know Joseph
Smith was a true prophet.” Or “I know the Church is true.” Having
initially received a witness from the
Holy
Ghost as a teenager that these things are true, I have said these very
things many times during my life, especially when I served as a missionary
among the Spanish-speaking people in New Jersey.
However, there was an extended stretch
of time in recent years (off and on for about nine years) when I had
reservations about Joseph Smith. In Church settings when I shared my
testimony during this time, I would often leave out any mention of Joseph
Smith. I had questions and some uneasiness regarding some of Joseph
Smith’s history, particularly regarding details surrounding Joseph Smith’s implementation
of the practice of polygamy. I went through a couple of very brief
stretches in my journey where I thought it was more likely than not that Joseph
Smith was not a true prophet of God. But I kept hanging on to my faith,
and as I continued time and time again to apply
the
“five anchoring” principles I discussed in an earlier post, my faith was
renewed, restored, and strengthened. I don’t want to re-hash my earlier
post, but I cannot emphasize enough the importance of those principles as
critical pieces of my journey through my faith crisis. If you are in a
similar position as I was during this time, please read and consider my earlier
post and the principles I outline in
that
post.
General Thoughts About the Advanced
Topics
I know some skeptics will disagree or
roll their eyes (or worse) at the thoughts I express in this post, but, as I
discuss in more detail below, I recalled several experiences I had with the
Holy
Spirit with respect to “
Joseph
Smith 101,” that I concluded that even as I practiced critical
thinking on these Advanced Topics, I had to view these issues from the point of
view of faith and err on the side of faith and hope. (Thus, the
“Remember” anchor described in my
“Five
Anchors of Faith” post was crucial to my journey.)
With that in mind, in addition to the
general principles I discussed in my
“Five
Anchors of Faith” post,
here are some other ideas I have formulated, specifically as they apply to the
Advanced Topics of Joseph Smith’s history:
- Our view of the history is
limited.
All historians use primary and secondary sources to piece together
an interpretation of the past, and they can only use the sources that are
available to them. But there are often holes in the narrative.
As Elder
Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum
of the Twelve Apostles recently said, “In a future
day, you will have 100 times more information [about Joseph Smith] than
from all of today’s search engines combined, and it will come from our
all-knowing Father in Heaven.”[iv]
- Secondary sources are biased. When Joseph Smith
was visited by the angel Moroni, Moroni told him that his
name “should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds,
and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all
people.” (See Joseph
Smith-History 1:33.) Because “Joseph
Smith 101” can be polarizing, very rarely is Joseph Smith’s
history told objectively.[v]
So, when I was struggling with the topic of Joseph Smith’s polygamy, I
determined that I would not make any drastic move in my faith (i.e., leave
the Church) in response to Joseph Smith’s polygamy unless (1) I was giving
equal time to the Lord, as I discussed in my “Five
Anchors of Faith” post and (2) I looked at the primary sources
myself. Having somewhat of a history background (History was my
major in undergrad), I wasn’t going to leave something this important up
to someone else’s interpretation of the historical record.[vi]
- Is it possible that some of
the sources are unreliable? I’m a little hesitant to include this point because
it’s admittedly speculative. But I do think it’s worth mentioning.
So, I’ll put an asterisk next to this one because it is really
impossible to tell, and we ultimately have to take the historical record
as we find it. However, because of what Moroni said about Joseph
Smith, that his name “should be had for good and evil among all
nations” (Joseph
Smith-History 1:33), I sometimes wonder in the back of my mind if some of
the historical evidence (though certainly not all of the evidence) that
paints Joseph Smith in a negative light is due to tampering with the
historical record over time. This is not unprecedented (see, for
example, Mark
Hoffman). And there is the possibility that Mark Hoffman and
Mark Hoffman-like figures (perhaps even some of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries?)
still have their tampering fingerprints on the historical record. I
haven’t looked at this in depth to pinpoint any particular sources that I
would hypothesize are tampered evidence, but as I said, I have kept it in
the back of my mind as I have contemplated the Advanced Topics. In
2014, Elder
Neil L. Anderson referenced in General Conference some people who
left the Church over a Mark Hoffman document: “Years ago I
read a Time magazine article that reported the discovery
of a letter, supposedly written by Martin Harris, that conflicted with
Joseph Smith’s account of finding the Book of Mormon plates. A few members left the
Church because of the document. Sadly, they left too
quickly. Months later experts discovered (and the forger confessed) that
the letter was a complete deception.”[vii]
- Be aware of modern-day prejudices. Might I suggest that
as we consider Joseph Smith’s history, that we be self-aware enough to
acknowledge when we’re projecting today’s culture onto 19th century
frontier culture? For example, it might sound weird for us to think
of a treasure-hunting youth who gains inspiration in his revelations
through the use
of a seer stone, but that would not sound as strange in early 19th
century frontier life as it does today. (Nor, might I add, is
it evidence against “Joseph
Smith 101.”) Joseph Smith was to a certain extent a product of
the culture in which he lived. And Heavenly Father speaks to His
children – including prophets like Joseph Smith – even with our
limitations, including our personal and cultural idiosyncrasies.[viii]
- Joseph Smith was mortal and
subject to imperfection and error. Joseph Smith was very young, emotional, and energetic,
which gave him unique advantages as a leader. But these same
qualities also meant he was inexperienced and perhaps in some cases, brash
and reckless. In every facet of his life, in each of his roles –
husband, father, leader, politician – he was susceptible to imperfections.
Joseph Smith himself said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is
no error in the revelations which I have taught.”[ix] Joseph
Smith’s own revelations often included reprimands from God to Joseph
Smith. See, for example, Doctrine
and Covenants 5:21: “And now I command you, my servant Joseph, to repent and walk more
uprightly before me, and to yield to the persuasions of men no more.”
(See also Doctrine and Covenants 3:6, 64:7, 90:1, 93:47.)
And even though leaders of the Church haven’t always spoken in detail
about the Advanced Topics, they have discussed Joseph Smith’s imperfect
nature. In addition to more recent mentions by Church leaders about
Joseph Smith’s imperfections (in light, I suppose, of increased focus on
the Advanced Topics), here are just a few examples I have found in my
recent studies of General Conference talks from the 1980s and 1990s:[x]
· In 1981,
James
E. Faust said: “
As I submit to you my testimony of
Joseph Smith, I acknowledge his humanness along with his great spiritual
powers. He did not claim to be divine, nor a perfect man. He claimed only to be
a mortal man with human feelings and imperfections, trying honestly to fulfill
the divine mission given to him. He so describes himself in recorded counsel
given to some of the members of the Church who had just arrived in Nauvoo on
October 29, 1842. Said the Prophet, ‘
I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect;
if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they
would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would
likewise bear with their infirmities.’
(History
of the Church, 5:181.)”[xi]
· I
n 1983, Neal A. Maxwell said
in General Conference: “Was Joseph imperfect like other prophets? Of course!
Surely, Joseph could identify with these words of an ancient prophet, which he
translated: ‘
Condemn me not
because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, …
but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our
imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.’
(Mormon 9:31;
see also Doctrine
and Covenants 67:5.)”[xii]
· In 1996, Dallin H. Oaks said
in General Conference: “The man I came to know in [my extensive studies of
Joseph Smith] was not the man I had imagined. When I was a boy, growing up in
the Church, I imagined the Prophet Joseph to be old and dignified and distant.
But the Joseph Smith I met in my reading and personal research was a man of the
frontier—young, emotional, dynamic, and so loved and approachable by his people
that they often called him ‘
Brother Joseph.’
My studies strengthened my testimony of his
prophetic calling. What a remarkable man! At the same time, I could see that he
was mortal and therefore subject to sin and error, pain and affliction.”[xiii]
As Neal A. Maxwell
alluded to in the quote above, Joseph Smith’s imperfect character is consistent
with the models of prophets we read about in the scriptures. Peter denied
Christ just before Christ’s crucifixion (see Luke
22:54-62). Abraham lied about Sarah being his sister (see Genesis
12:11-20) (whether or not this deception was a sin or was sanctioned by God
is for another discussion). Jonah disobeyed God when he was called to
preach repentance to the people of Ninevah (see Jonah 1).
David, though not necessarily a prophet, was a man of God who
miraculously protected his people by killing Goliath in his youth (see 1 Samuel 17),
but he fell into adultery and murder as an adult (see 2 Samuel 11)
(but note that David’s later sins did not mean he didn’
t perform the good works and miracles of his
youth).[xiv]
As a youth, I thought
that everything that came out of a prophet’s mouth was to be literally
understood and had to be true by virtue of the prophet being a prophet.
As my faith has matured, I have come to understand that while we should
give deference to the words of the prophets, prophets are also subject to sin,
error, and weakness. As I have discussed in
a
previous post,
Church leaders have
long admitted that they are subject to mortal weaknesses and errors. For
example, in the October 2013 General Conference, President
Dieter F. Uchtdorf taught:
And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or
leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things
said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect
beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His
imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.
In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of
men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at
the judgment-seat of Christ.”
This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day
when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.
It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by
men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished,
or destroyed. [xv]
I feel it is important to make a brief detour from the main topic to
discuss the tension between the oft-repeated counsel to follow the prophet and
the principle that prophets are subject to error. What do we do, given
the possibility of prophetic error in light of the mortality and imperfect
nature of prophets and the consistent direction to “follow the prophet”?
Joseph Smith received a revelation in which the Lord
called him as a “seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ...”
and then the Lord instructed: “Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give
heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he
receiveth them...For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own
mouth, in all patience and faith.” (See Doctrine
and Covenants 21:1, 4-5.) The “patience” part of this verse might
suggest that leaders may be wrong in some things, but the Lord instructs that
we are to be patient with the prophets even in their shortcomings, but still
receive the revelations as if from the Lord’s mouth. (I think that the
possibility of human error in the prophetic process is also one of the reasons
why it’s important for members of the Church to pray for our leaders.)
The instruction to receive prophets’ words in “faith” underscores to
me the importance of keeping our eyes on Christ, even as we follow the
instructions of Church leaders. We know that when we speak
of “faith” in the context of the gospel, it is always a reference to
faith in Jesus Christ. Christ’s Atonement can and will make up for any errors,
weaknesses, or deficiencies in prophets, apostles, and other Church leaders. In
October 2015, Elder M.
Russell Ballard said, “Too many people think Church leaders and
members should be perfect or nearly perfect. They forget that the
Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals.
Our leaders have the best intentions, but sometimes we make mistakes.”[xvi]
While prophets are subject to error, I don't want to overstate this. I do
believe that Jesus Christ leads His prophets and apostles, and the prophets and
apostles are more often than not leading through divine inspiration and
revelation. And I believe there are real blessings for following the
prophet, even if we disagree with them or even if they ultimately prove to be
wrong.[xvii]
If the people had followed Noah, they would have been protected from the flood.
And, more relevant to this blog post, the people at Haun’s Mill would
have been protected from massacre if Jacob Haun had followed Joseph Smith’
s counsel to instruct the residents at Haun’
s Mill to leave. Beyond physical protection,
though, following the prophets provides spiritual blessings and protection.
I have found that this principle of following the prophet while
acknowledging their human weaknesses requires me to be humble to recognize that
I may be wrong in my assessment of prophets’ instruction and direction.
And humility is a key characteristic we are to learn here in mortality to
become more like our Heavenly
Father.
Ok, returning now
from that detour discussion of the mortality of prophets generally to my more
pointed discussion of Joseph Smith’s mortality.
So, at some point in
my development, I came to understand and believe that there are some things
Joseph Smith and other prophets said and did which were not part of their
prophetic calling. But for some occurrences, it is difficult to know,
even in hindsight, whether they are divinely appointed directions from God or
if they are attributable to Joseph’s mortal weaknesses. For these sorts
of things which have no immediate answer, I can usually see simultaneously
three alternative narratives, and I strive to exercise patience and faith to
wait until some future time to know which narrative is the correct one.
The three narratives are as follows: (1) a narrative in which a
particular occurrence was divinely appointed (this narrative usually requires
me to exercise humility to accept that I don’t understand everything, that
God’s ways are not my ways (see
Isaiah 55:8-9)),
(2) an alternate narrative in which the occurrence can be chalked up to Joseph
Smith’s well-intentioned mortality, and (3) another alternative, which is a
combination of the first two, in which a particular occurrence is divinely
appointed, but some of the details are “tainted” by mortal imperfections or the
culture of the day. In any of the three alternatives as applied to the
Advanced Topics, these occurrences do not invalidate the claims of “
Joseph
Smith 101,” even though Satan and others would assert otherwise.
Just because Joseph Smith was subject to human weakness and learned line upon
line, precept upon precept (see
Isaiah 28:10;
2 Nephi 28:30;
Doctrine
and Covenants 98:12) does
not mean that the logical
conclusion must be “everything Joseph Smith did was unprophetic.”
- Don’t lose sight of “Joseph
Smith 101”.
I have seen some criticism of the Church for a so-called glossing
over of unsavory facts in the Advanced Topics. To some extent, this
criticism may be merited. But! The Church emphasizes “Joseph
Smith 101” because it is the part of the history that
matters. As noted above, there is a lot of Joseph Smith’s
history that is benign and even a great deal of “good” facts that we don’t
often talk about in the Church on a regular basis because they are not
central to the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ like the
points in “Joseph
Smith 101” are. I’m not suggesting that we should
ignore the Advanced Topics. The reality is that I personally think
it is important for members of the Church to understand our full history.
And I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned in the Advanced
Topics.[xviii]
However, because of my own experience, my suggestion – my plea,
really – is that if/when you approach the Advanced Topics, you
do so with an eye of faith. Counterbalance your study of
the Advanced Topics with a continued, consistent study of the Atonement of
Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, and the other basic doctrines of the
gospel of Jesus Christ because the Advanced Topics can become consuming.
Furthermore, as I focused on the pure doctrine of the Atonement of
Jesus Christ, even during my period of doubts, the Spirit was
able to testify to me of those pure truths, and in the periphery of my
mind was the acknowledgement that most of what I know and understand about
God, Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the Plan of Salvation were, either
directly or indirectly, fruits from Joseph Smith.
My Story (Continued)
In a recent regional conference I
attended, the visiting general authority was discussing the topic of doubts and
noted that some people attempt to try to learn truth through the process of
elimination, like a
game of
Clue. But this doesn’t work because there are limitless claims and
doubts! After you resolve one, another one takes its place. (In
other words, I later thought, we would be “ever learning and never able to
come to the knowledge of the truth” (see
2 Timothy 3:7).)
The visiting general authority noted that there are answers to all doubts and
questions that might arise, but you could track them all down only to find
another doubt to take its place. Ultimately, he said, you can’t prove
truth by disproving all negative claims. There has to be positive proof!
And that proof comes with respect to spiritual things, through the witness
of the
Holy
Ghost.
[xix]
And, ultimately, those witnesses from the
Holy
Ghost that I have experienced with respect to “
Joseph
Smith 101” are what I hung on to as I waded through Advanced Topics.
At one point during my journey through the shadows of doubt, I was
serving as a primary teacher in my local ward, and one of the lessons was about
Joseph Smith. My co-teacher challenged the nine year olds we were
teaching to pray at some time over the next week to ask Heavenly Father if
Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Because of my reservations at the time
with respect to Joseph Smith, I decided to take the challenge as well. I
prayed, again, as I had before, and asked Heavenly Father if Joseph Smith was a
prophet of God. I didn’t receive a direct answer at that time. The
distinct impression I received at that time was that I needed to go to the temple
that week, which I did. During that trip to the temple, I did not receive
a witness of Joseph Smith specifically, but I did feel the
Spirit strongly,
enough to keep me going forward. Fast forward more than two years later.
I was listening to a lesson during
Elders
Quorum meeting when the instructor, a well-educated man who, it was
evident, was aware of and had considered the Advanced Topics, testified about
Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling. I felt the
Spirit witness
to me again that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, in spite of anything
contained in the Advanced Topics.
I felt that specific witness of Joseph
Smith’s calling as a prophet of God again during the October 2015 General
Conference when the
Spirit whispered
to me again, perhaps even more clearly, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
And as I have continued in that light I received, I have
remembered more
and more experiences I have had over my lifetime.
[xx]
As I have continued in my faith, I
can remember now many other experiences with the
Spirit witnessing
to me of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, which I had largely
forgotten in the middle of my faith crisis.
I remember now that I felt the witness from the
Spirit of
Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling
hundreds of times as a
missionary when I shared the account of Joseph Smith’s first vision.
I have felt it hundreds more
times as I have read and studied the Book of Mormon.
I have felt witnesses of Joseph Smith’s
calling when I worked as a youth counselor in the
Especially For Youth program
during college.
I have felt the Spirit as I have
engaged in temple work, a work restored by Joseph Smith.
I have felt the Spirit overwhelmingly
listening to Joseph Smith’s successors every six months at General Conference.
I feel the Spirit nearly every Sunday
as I partake of the sacrament, administered under the priesthood authority
restored by heavenly messengers to Joseph Smith.
I feel the Spirit as I consider “
Joseph
Smith 101” and the logic it adds to the Christian narrative.
I feel the Spirit as I contemplate the
Plan of Salvation and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, both of which have been
significantly clarified by Joseph Smith.
I have had countless experiences with
the
Spirit as
it relates to Joseph Smith, the Church that Jesus Christ restored through him,
and other fruits related thereto.
Thus, ultimately, I personally cannot
deny that I have had experiences with Heavenly Father and the Holy
Ghost to witness to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
And so, based upon my own personal
experiences, I conclude that I must continue to join the millions of voices of
missionaries and Latter-day Saints worldwide who declare without equivocation,
reservation, or qualification: Joseph Smith was a prophet of God!
Brother Joseph, by David Lindsley
(Used with permission)
If you are like I was and struggling in
your testimony of “Joseph
Smith 101,” my own experience compels me to encourage you to hang on
to your faith. Please consider and apply the principles I discussed in
my “Five
Anchors of Faith” post and
in this post. There were several points in my journey where I
thought I would always have reservations and doubts about my faith. But I
am an example of someone that has experienced light at the end of the tunnel of
doubt. If you would like to further discuss my journey with me, feel free
to reach out to me in the comments below or at aconversationaboutfaith@gmail.com.
[ii] In a book I recently read, Matthew Bowman’s
The Mormon
People: The Making of an American Faith, I learned that early Church
historians, such as B.H. Roberts, were very open about all of the Church’s
history, but during a later period, the Church went through a period of time
when the tangential topics were deemphasized by Church historians and the
history became more “devotional,” as Bowman describes it, and less
holistic. As a result, some view the Church as glossing over some of
these tangential topics.
[iii] There are many who have defended Joseph Smith and explained these
topics from the point of view of faith. See, for example,
FairMormon, an organization dedicated
to “providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine,
belief, and practice.”
[v] Yes, this admittedly cuts both ways, as the Church’s narrative is
usually not objective either.
[vi] I found
Brian
Hales’ Joseph Smith's Polygamy website to be most
helpful in this search. This website evaluates and draws conclusions on
the primary sources, so it is not entirely objective, but this website
discusses the primary sources in-depth and includes the primary sources for the
reader to analyze. It is the most comprehensive website I could find that
tackled the hard questions about Joseph Smith’s polygamy with an in-depth look
at the primary sources. Although I think he is at times a bit
overreaching in his conclusions, he does demonstrate through an analysis of the
primary sources that others are overreaching in their conclusions: while there is evidence that some of his polygamous marriages had some degree of sexuality, the primary
sources do not contain evidence that marriages with young women and with women
married to other men were sexual in nature. Polygamy was much more complicated
than the caricature some paint of a sex-driven Joseph Smith wielding power over
his followers to satisfy his own lustful urges.
[viii] See, for example,
Doctrine
and Covenants 1:24, in which the Lord explains that the revelations included
in the Doctrine and Covenants, most of which were given to Joseph Smith “were
given unto my servants
in their weakness, after the manner of their
language….”
[x] There are a number of others I could cite that speak of the
shortcomings of Church leaders generally. See, for example,
Gordon B. Hinckley in the October 1983 General Conference: “We recognize
that our forebears were human. They doubtless made mistakes. … But the mistakes
were minor, when compared with the marvelous work which they accomplished. To
highlight the mistakes and gloss over the greater good is to draw a caricature.
Caricatures are amusing, but they are often ugly and dishonest. A man may have
a blemish on his cheek and still have a face of beauty and strength, but if the
blemish is emphasized unduly in relation to his other features, the portrait is
lacking in integrity.” (“Be Not Deceived,” by Gordon B. Hinckley,
available at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/10/be-not-deceived?lang=eng.)
[xiv] To the extent one might argue that
Joseph Smith is more flawed than any of the prophets in the Bible, I would
respond that Joseph Smith’s imperfections are more evident and accessible than
Biblical prophets because he is so much closer in time to us, the historical
record is more complete than for ancient prophets, and, therefore, we are more
aware of his flaws than we are of most ancient figures we read about in the
Bible.
[xvi] To see one example of me attempting
to apply this principle in action, see my raw thoughts just after the Church
recently changed its policy with respect to children of homosexual
couples here.
[xviii] But I don’t think that means we have to go out of our way to talk
about the Advanced Topics in every discussion about Joseph Smith. And I
do think that (1) the majority of our time is best spent on the gospel of Jesus
Christ and the elements of “
Joseph
Smith 101” and (2) there is wisdom in the “milk before meat” principle
(see
1
Corinthians 3:1-2).
[xix] This last week at General Conference,
Elder Dallin H.
Oaks, when discussing Joseph Smith said, “[T]here are many things in
our early Church history, such as what Joseph Smith did or did not do in every
circumstance, that some use as a basis for opposition. To all I say,
exercise faith and put reliance on the Savior’s teaching that we
should “know them by their fruits” (
Matthew 7:16).
The Church is making great efforts to be transparent with the records we
have, but after all we can publish, our members are sometimes left with basic
questions that cannot be resolved by study. . . .
Some things can be
learned only by faith. . . . Our ultimate reliance must be on faith in the
witness we have received from the Holy Ghost.” (
“Opposition in All Things,” by Dallin H. Oaks, available at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/opposition-in-all-things?lang=eng.)
