Today’s guest post is from Bishop Bill.
A few months ago I finished reading the Steve Jobs biography written by Walter Isaacson. I had always heard what a jerk Jobs was, but didn’t realize the magnitude of his narcissism, selfishness, and just plan meanness. He was a complex, gifted and flawed individual. He initially abandoned his own daughter, left his ex-wife on welfare while he was worth millions, and was cutthroat to “friends” in his company. But he was a creative genius nonetheless, and no doubt influenced and continues to influence the lives of millions for better (or worse) with his iPhone and other inventions. In fact many of you are probably reading this very blog post on an Apple product. It does not seem to bother the millions of people who use his products that he was such a flawed man.
How does this compare to Joseph Smith? He too was a complex, gifted, and some would say psychologically flawed individual. He treated some of his “friends” terribly, married other women behind Emma’s back, and yet created a church and produced a book that has influenced millions of people’s lives. And even when people learn of his flaws, it does not seem to bother them as they use his product (church).
Is it human nature to ignore flaws in great individuals as long as the product is life changing? Do the ends justify the means?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
In addition to other things, he needed a shave. I don’t like the fashionable “Don Johnson look”.
History is replete with such flawed heroes, whom we embrace because their contributions outweigh their shortcomings. Dr. Martin Luther King transformed American society despite a checkered personal life. Walt Disney gave us the “happiest place on earth” despite being a horrific tyrant. Really, we’re all flawed to some degree but embraced by friends and family and ultimately a loving Savior.
Look at our current political climate and all we are willing to forgive and forget and move past!. Life altering is more like it!
I would feel a lot better if the church would stop with the hagiographic portrayals of Joseph. They make token admissions that he wasn’t perfect, but they usually follow that up with ‘he was too jovial’ or ‘he cared too much.’ I can’t get past his treatment of Emma or the manipulation of the other women he married (and their husbands). If this is godly sanctioned behavior of a prophet, then I’m not interested in worshiping a god who cares so little for his daughters. I wish the leadership could admit that they’re at least puzzled or disappointed by (if not denounce) some of the things Joseph did. That would go a long way towards increasing my trust in their leadership, instead of eroding it. Instead we get essays that obscure by saying ‘several months before her fifteenth birthday’ instead of ‘fourteen’, and ‘issue carefully worded denials’ instead of ‘lie’.
I agree that people are willing to overlook a lot about an individual if they decide their “fruits” are good (the whole, “by their fruits ye shall know them” thing). But that comparison to the church is somewhat limited. Ultimately, people don’t have to admire or respect Steve Jobs (or even know anything about him) in order to find Apple products useful. Membership in the church requires belief that Joseph was a prophet, which means you have to reconcile any negative information you learn about him with your opinion of what a prophet should look like. For most people, prophets are held to a much higher standard of righteousness. So either people won’t believe allegations of wrongdoing, or they’ll justify the actions by saying, “I believe Joseph is a prophet, so I’m confident there’s a good reason for that behavior that our limited viewpoints can’t see right now.” In that sense, people believe Joseph *must* have been good because he was a prophet, and prophets are good.
It’s less common to find someone arguing, “Yeah, Joseph was a jerk at times and did some highly questionable things, but my belief in him as a prophet and my testimony of the church as a whole is strong in spite of that negative behavior.” Put another way, I still value the product (church) and believe the founder was inspired, but it doesn’t mean I have to like the man.
Bishop Bill,
You missed on this one big time. I don’t see any way to compare JS with SJ. Even their initials are opposites.
SJ was building a company. JS is God’s prophet. SJ lacked charity, the greatest gift of all. JS possessed charity and gave his life as evidence of his calling as a prophet.
Well, just glad you’re not comparing Donald Trump to either. I think I have to draw the line there. Of course, the results of his presidency will probably be devastating, so the comparison wouldn’t hold anyway.
I want to agree with Mary Ann, and (in some limited sense), with Jared…the relationship of Steve Jobs to Apple (or to Apple products) is very different than the relationship of Joseph Smith with the church.
The church’s “product” (e.g., institution and prophetic mantle, etc.,) is tied to Joseph Smith…what you think of Joseph Smith affects what you think of prophets, which affects what you think about the church.
‘
In contrast, you can enjoy apple products without caring too much about the kind of person that Steve Jobs was.
I especially like the way Mary Ann put it:
I really think that a variant of that last point needs to become more common. Dismissing Joseph’s bad behavior is not sustainable. Justifying the bad behavior is not sustainable.
I think Mormons need to become more comfortable with knowing that God still works with profoundly flawed and sinful people — external righteousness is neither necessary nor sufficient to be called. And if someone does not accept that, then they can join the rest of us disaffected folks XD
Hmmm… Is it taken as a given here that we should attribute “bad behavior” to Joseph Smith? I’m not ready to climb aboard that wagon.
I’ve really enjoyed the comments. So what I’m hearing is that since SJ was just “running a company” it is easy to divorce his personal behavior from the product. But with JS, his personal behavior is integrally tied to the product (church). I had not thought of this aspect. But one could then argue that if the founder is flawed, then the product is flawed. This happens when the church has whitewashed JS’s history, and made him out to be a Saint. I don’t see it this way. I believe we can dismiss JS’s personal flaws, and still find value in the church/gospel (two separate things)
I saw an example of this by the church growing up as a teenager in the early 70’s. We were constantly bombarded at church on the evils of “Rock Music” and everything that was associated with it (Sex/drugs/long hair……Oh the humanity!). In Firesides and Priesthood lessons we were told to avoid the music, as it was a reflection of the musician, and they lived such a decadent lifestyle! So it was quite the surprise in approximately 1974 or 75, that the church came out with a filmstrip on a young man getting ready for a mission. The only audio was a song that played on a cassette (with the beeps!). That song was the Beatles “Here Comes The Sun”. The Cog/dis that hit me was very eye opening. One the one hand I was hearing about the evils of groups like the Beatles, and on the other I realized the church was paying a royalty to the Beatles to use that song! They divorced the originator from the product!
From a doctrinal standpoint, God uses human beings to further his purposes, but humans are innately flawed. So if a human is flawed, is it still possible for that person to put forth a good product? I think in the vast majority of cases we can appreciate the good fruits of people even if we may not necessarily agree with their life choices (or like them as people). I care more about the efficacy and safety of the medicine I’m taking than I do about the morals of whatever researcher helped develop it. With music, a lot of people appreciate songs based on the message, lyrics, and song quality without worrying about loving the music group or approving of every other song that group has produced. I saw people sharing on Facebook, for example, Disturbed’s rendition of “Sound of Silence,” and I guarantee those people wouldn’t like the band’s background or the language/messages in most of their other songs.
Where we often get hung up is on motive, whether or not the desired objective is a worthy goal. For that we rely on very subjective judgment. We accept people illegally smuggling Jewish citizens out of Europe in WWII because we approve of the motive and believe it yielded good fruits, even though acting illegally is considered wrong (“bad” means, good end). We will accept killing people in times of war, even though killing is wrong (“bad” means, good end).
What about another comparison, to Gandhi? An ongoing conversation in India is “Was Gandhi a good man?” We generally only talk about him in reverential terms, but he was also known to be a neglectful parent and bad husband. We like to say that no success in the world can make up for failure at home (in the church we say that), so it’s why Gandhi is such a good comparison point. Say what you will about Joseph Smith, but any way you slice it, the history shows he was a bad husband–even D&C 132 shows that. He broke his wife’s heart by practicing polygamy in which she had no say (or she would be damned). That’s a pretty big failure at home in my book.
I’m just sitting here in the corner giggling at all the fruit/product comparisons because it’s called Apple.
But also, I agree with Andrew that the church as a whole would be a much more welcoming place if accepting Joseph wasn’t considered mandatory.
“Dismissing Joseph’s bad behavior is not sustainable. Justifying the bad behavior is not sustainable.”
Andrew, I agree.
Dismissing and justifying need to stop. That will give people room to forgive, or not, as they will choose. With the dismissals, whitewashing and justifying the church is presuming to tell me what to think. I want to say: That’s my job! Please give me a chance to come to a charitable conclusion. Forcing it down my throat is not working.
In what way is “accepting Joseph … considered mandatory”? Through decades in Utah and outside the “Mormon corridor” I have never been asked to accept a white-washed version of his personality and character or his behavior relative to Emma, etc. The D&C includes a number of instances of calling Joseph himself to repentance. In Nauvoo he seems pretty much to have demonstrated either or both megalomania and a Messiah-complex. Nobody asks me to disavow that evaluation or to like him; and I don’t need to be actively pushing my evaluation or dislike on others either. None of all that prevents acknowledging the Lord’s sometimes use of Joseph as a prophet – at least in the messy Old Testament sense (Moses, for example, was a murderer (maybe only manslaughterer) by modern standards, and is reported to have directly disobeyed God’s command at the Rock of Horeb and taken credit to himself) or the New Testament sense (Paul’s & Peter’s failures of behavior are included, as is their dispute and Paul’s chastising Peter for his behavior).
ji, Though you’re not “ready to climb aboard that [bad behavior of JS] wagon”, it seems Joseph was: “I dont want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous.” Joseph Smith, 21 May 1843, Joseph Smith Diary by Willard Richards. See Documentary History of the Church, 5:401. The common conflation of personal righteousness with prophetic calling seems to be an inaccurate idealization.
I think Andrew S. and Mary Ann are right and I think Bishop Bill’s point is that it doesn’t have to be that way. There is no requirement to experience the church as being irrevocably tied to Joseph’s behavior. The only reason such a requirement exists is because we members (with the forceful help and guidance from leaders) make it so.
I was thinking about this yesterday, actually, because I’m reading William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience (for the first time, and abridged because who has that kind of time) and James touches on all this in Lecture I:
“By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their roots … If there were such a thing as inspiration from a higher realm, it might well be that the neurotic temperament would furnish the chief condition of the requisite receptivity… ”
Anyway, good discussion and good on ‘ya Bishop Bill.
JR, I won’t join the crowd and climb on the wagon of condemning Joseph Smith, although it seems the fashionable thing to do. For me, it’s not a matter of inaccurate idealization; rather, it is a matter of charity, a lack of a perfect understanding of the facts, a dislike of kicking a man when he is down (or otherwise unable to defend himself), and an unwillingness to raise my voice against the Lord’s anointed. These are all purposeful choices that I make, so I’ll stand apart from the crowd in this matter. No, I will hold that Joseph Smith was an honest man, and a good man. If I have to play the organ at church meetings tomorrow, I might play Praise to the Man (no. 27) or Lord, I Would Follow Thee (no. 220).
ji, You have confused two different wagons. Recognizing bad behavior does not equal condemning. It is not incompatible with charity, recognizing one’s own lack of perfect understanding of facts. It is a prerequisite to forgiving; without it there is nothing to forgive. It is also not inconsistent with holding that JS was a good and honest man. Good and honest men make mistakes sometimes.
Not so. One can easily forgive without first demanding an accounting of all the facts and alleged facts. Indeed, demanding such an accounting before granting forgiveness is a rather uncharitable approach to forgiveness, don’t you think? Besides, why do you take it upon yourself to forgive Joseph Smith — he never did you any wrong. You presume too much to think that you need to forgive him, or that he is in need of your forgiveness. Or, if you have forgiven, why haven’t you forgotten?
As I said, I choose not to join you on your wagon of “recognizing” all of Joseph Smith’s bad behavior and mistakes. I don’t have an adequate understanding of the facts to do so, and the facts I do know speak in his favor. I really do think we err in negatively judging Joseph Smith, fashionable as it is — especially when we use presentism.
How did the recent first lady say it? When others go low, she goes high. It’s a choice on the part of both parties. Neither choice is necessary; both choices are voluntary.
I choose to be a friend to Joseph Smith and his memory.
And now you have confused your first two wagons with a third, which is not mine. Neither is JS in need of my forgiveness. That you got right.
It is also apt to compare Steve Jobs to Brigham Young. Both took over organizations in succession crises and led massive restructuring. Both were innovative organizers and empire builders, with mythologized cult of personality and lasting legacies. And both were also known to be dictatorial and tyrannical, and frequently acted immorally/unethically to reach their great achievements.
Whether talking about the lives and legacies of influential people like JS or BY or Steve Jobs or even Gandhi, the only reasonable conclusion is that people are complicated–including each one of us. I consider this a charitable approach, and I try to bring it up as often as I can in church, and while many people appreciate it, at least as many are openly resistant to the idea of past or present Church leaders being viewed as anything less than the white-washed mythologized versions we were taught growing up, which is troubling.
I can agree that JS doesn’t need my forgiveness. I’ll call it respect, leeway, acceptance – something along those lines. And, true, Joseph did nothing to me, but the church harms me and my daughters in particular when it calls the evil-doing to women in the early church good. Want people to get over it? Then call it what it was or draw some kind of line in the cement. Right now it’s a line in the sand. The whole “from time to time” polygamy excuse is repugnant to modern women and girls. We need to hear: wrong, not happenin’ again, ever.
ji,
“Besides, why do you take it upon yourself to forgive Joseph Smith — he never did you any wrong.”
So would you treat your spouse the way Joseph treated Emma, going behind her back and marrying some of her closest friends and serving girls? Would you put your friends through loyalty tests by asking one to give up his wife to you? Would you tell young girls that their family’s exaltation rested on her decision to become your secret polygamous wife? Would you justify your actions with ‘revelations’ from God that if your wife found this objectionable, it wouldn’t matter, that she would be destroyed and you would be rewarded with hundreds more wives and children? If you don’t think this has had a lasting effect on the women (and men) of this church, you’re delusional.
Many will say that you’re coming very close to the “heretic” threshold by using, as your premise, that JS was a flawed man. I mean, you’re not even making that argument. It’s a given implied by your question. We have to accept it to answer your question.
Personally, I believe it’s true that our leaders are often flawed and sometimes wrong. I think we see the church walking away from the idea that we should unquestioningly accept the sanitized version of church history that has previously been fed to us.
But, that makes it harder to be a member of the church these days. If you’re a dogmatic believer, you’re suddenly faced with new information like that JS used a seer stone and not the Urim and Thummim. But, if you’re an independent thinker, you’re viewed as a heretic by the dogmatic believers.