God works through imperfect people.

I get where Patrick is coming from because it is true that the prophets/disciples of the Bible were not moral exemplars (e.g., Peter, David, Abraham, etc.)

But I have issues with this apologetic because it contradicts Mormon Scripture, namely D&C 121:36,37

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

I interpret that if you are covering your sins, gratifying your pride, or exercising control or dominion that you are no longer entitled to the priesthood/authority and therefore cannot be authoritatively speak for God.

I see how it can be a beautiful concept that God is capable of achieving his works through very flawed people, but this line of thinking can validate any other religion and religious experience.

That's kinda the problem, isn't it? If no amount of wrongdoing can disqualify someone from being "god's mouthpiece", then why was there a need for a "restoration" in the first place?

I have no problem with the imperfect people line. But what I do have a problem with is the types of imperfection we’re being asked to swallow as acceptable when juxtaposed against the invasions of privacy and moral terpitude leadership at all levels imposes on the members. This is the flaw in the argument. I have sat in many a disciplinary council and watched as members flayed themselves for their sins, yet we excuse sins of a greater magnitude by people who were in power. That is not right. Jesus would not accept that kind of hypocrisy. We should not accept it. I refuse to accept it.

Not just imperfect. They're, like, the worst people. I mean, I'm "imperfect" but I've managed to live decades without sleeping with teenagers or other men's wives, fabricating "translations" of ancient documents by historical figures, running a scam bank, and so on. That's Joseph Smith, a very bad person.

I've also managed to avoid going around telling false stories about near plane crashes, telling people in poverty that they have to give me money to get out of poverty, telling people that their family members who don't worship me are lazy and lax, systematically discriminating against LGBTQ people, being a leader in an officially racist organization, etc. That's Russell Nelson, a very bad person.

They're not just imperfect people! They're liars and manipulators and abusers. Just say that, Patrick Mason. I'll respect you when you call a spade a spade and tell people that you support the Church even though it's run by liars, manipulators, and abusers.

I never expected Joseph or Brigham to be perfect. That is a VERY lame argument. I just expected them to be GOOD. Either they were evil men, or God commanded it. If God commanded it, then I have a higher system of morality than He does. If that is true, He doesn't deserve my worship.

It's actually a pretty easy concept to grasp.

Bonus thought: Patrick Mason says he doesn't believe polygamy was from God. Modern temple sealings are an outgrowth from that practice. Without suggesting God works in mysterious ways and did it to ensure only the righteous would believe, how can we be sure it isn't a 200 year mistake?

I think if there is one thing which former members and current members can agree on, it's the imperfect nature of the leaders at the top. However, when it comes to criticizing past or current prophets, there is a proverbial line drawn in the sand.

Is there space for Joseph and Brigham in the Church?

For the church's sake, there better be. Like it or not, they were the first two prophets of the church, and everything the church does or is today is connected to them directly.

And if there is, how will the Church overcome the deeds of those prophets?

Only by fully recognizing every aspect of their deeds and characters rather than whitewashing, gaslighting and obscuring history can the church begin to disassociate themselves from past leaders.

That same recognition needs to be applied to current prophets as well, otherwise 100 years from now, I suspect there might be similar discussions on how the future church can overcome the things that past prophets like Nelson and Oaks said and did.

Can the religion fill the Earth while accepting these men as instruments of God?

Maybe... ignoring and whitewashing the things they did certainly isn't helping the mormon religion fill the Earth.

I think Warren Jeffs is arguably worse than either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, even if the most negative possible assessment is made about the behavior of the latter two. However, they did the same kinds of things, marrying already married women, children, close relatives, mothers and their daughters, etc. To my simple mind, they are enough similar that if I will reject Jeffs for his actions, I probably should reject Brigham Young and Joseph Smith for theirs. What would it take to reject a prophetic claimant because of his bad fruits if not these things? Jesus said to know false prophets by their evil fruits.

They also both slandered women. Brigham Young even seems to have ordered murders. See

https://user.xmission.com/~research/mormonpdf/storm.pdf

for one such example. You can also read the teaching that in a mixed race family, the white half needed to be beheaded and the children killed in order to gain salvation. This was B.Y. to the Utah Legislature in 1852 and is in Journal of Wilford Woodruff. What would it take to reject based on evil fruit if not this? Did Jesus mean what he said?

It was an interesting thing my journey away from the LDS church. Through my doctrinal study I decided it was currently in apostasy. Much like the Pharisees at the time of Christ. Holding to their own traditions and corrupting the word of God. Drawing near with their lips but hearts far from Him. Denying the power of the atonement and exercising unrighteous dominion. Being older I also saw the lies and cover ups from what I was taught as a primary child and youth and what they were claiming.

Discovering what I felt was an apostate state, my next question was “when did it happen?” So I went backwards. Prophet by prophet. Hidden works by hidden works. I didn’t believe polygamy was of God so that was a huge jump back. So I was only left with the LDS church being true up to Kirtland before it entered apostasy (in my mind).

I had to dive deep after that and find out if it was ever the “one true church”. I decided it wasn’t.

Look, the LDS church has great teachings but they CAN own their errors. People can worship anywhere. Of course to do that they would have to admit prophets today don’t speak for God (as they shouldn’t). Prophets prophesy, they don’t dictate. I think I could have worshiped in a Church that owned the weaknesses and sins of those who came before—but they don’t.

I couldn’t reconcile it. I could for a long time with the classic conversation stoppers “just have faith”, “God will make all things known”, “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”, “remember those feelings you had when you found out the Book of Mormon was true—if the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith was a Prophet and this is the true Church.” “Are you praying and reading your scriptures every day?” “Only seek answers through church approved sources for they contain the truth.”

I mean, there are so many things I told myself! COVID changed lots of things. When all was quiet and I was teaching my early morning seminary kids via zoom without any support from SLC, the noise was gone and it was just me and the scriptures and God trying to find joy with some depressed kids. Suddenly the atonement became much simpler and everything else man made. That’s my story as I saw both sides.

I'll try to give an example of how people make the imperfect people thing work.

I personally believe that science is our best process for learning the truth. But the process is only as good as the people implementing it. And no matter how good the scientist is, he will always always always have some bias that will lead to less than accurate conclusions.

Newton wasn't perfect, and his laws aren't perfect. But they are a pretty good basis for understanding the world around us. But they fall apart when you start looking at things closer. But that doesn't mean we don't still use them. We just use them within their limits.

Likewise, church leaders are just people that are trying to help us implement the gospel. It doesn't mean they are doing it right, but sometimes they say things that can help us understand the world around us a little better.

The problem that I see is that in the church, we give people authority based on rituals and vague descriptors, not on the ability to understand and teach what the gospel is. We view them as experts in their field and therefore give more weight to the things they say based on who they are. If Einstein says something to me about the nature of gravity, I'm likely to believe him even if I don't actually understand it. Likewise, if a church leaders says something about morality, I'm more likely to believe him based on his authority.

But I don't think church leaders are good moral authorities. And I don't see any reason to see the church, or even God, as morally motivated. The moral teachings of the church are secondary to belief and rituals. According to church teachings, if you are immoral, there's still a way for you to repent and get to the celestial kingdom. But if you are unbaptized, not endowed or not sealed in the temple or don't believe in Jesus, it is impossible to make it to the celestial kingdom even if you are perfectly moral.

Why do we try to talk about morals and religion as if they are the same thing? If we can separate morality for the church and god, it's a lot easier to make sense of things.

I don’t see why we need a restoration, if god uses creeps, why can’t the Catholic Church still be true

The major problem with this apologetic is that it works just as well for Catholicism as for Mormonism.

Baptism changed to sprinkling? Washing and anointing changed to a "symbolic" washing? Ongoing restoration/revelation

Major problems with the way that past leaders have engaged in highly problematic behaviors? God is simply working through imperfect people

My issue with the idiom that "God works through imperfect people" is that it strawmans and minimizes legitimate underlying concerns.

Clearly, no individual is perfect; everyone acknowledges that, at best, only one perfect person has ever walked the earth.

But there's a major difference between a "perfection" standard for personal behavior, and expecting perfection in the way that an individual articulates God's perfect will. We expect perfection from God, even if the person speaking for God is not perfect. Additionally, we expect the person speaking for God to be good enough to minimize the worry that they will abuse their alleged line of communication with God for personal pleasure or gain.

There is a major difference in the sins and imperfections of some of the Biblical patriarchs and prophets and the self-serving, unapologetic moral failings of Mormonism's modern prophets. As just one example, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac involved Abraham giving up his heart's dearest desire (moral issues with human sacrifice notwithstanding). Calling polygamy an "Abrahamic test" for Joseph Smith completely ignores the fact that many men (including Joseph) actually want multiple sexual partners and are getting some amount of pleasure or temporal gain from their "compliance."

Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.

u/Grevas13, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.

To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.

Keep on Mormoning!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.