More Bushman...

[Richard7]

Joseph Smith is NOT a good example​

EDITED BY MOD--links to non-official Mormon websites not allowed! Links to official church website and BYU only permitted.

 

[Richard7]

Joseph Smith is NOT a good example​

EDITED BY MOD--LINK VIOLATION. NO UNOFFICIAL LINKS ALLOWED. Only links to official church website and BYU allowed.

 

[Richard7]

Andrew Jenson writes of Martin Harris describing the translation of the BOM with Joseph using both seer stone and U&T.
Markk we do not have Martin Harris actually writing this anywhere ... this is a second hand account by Andrew Jenson...


Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 58.

 

[Markk]

Ralf cut and pasted...“Jos. Smith was most decidedly not perfect. If this Joseph is saveable, then the rest of us have a chance.”EDITED LINK​

Ralf... here is the whole review from Amazon book reviews...(bold mine)

"

Reviewed in the United States ?? on November 20, 2005

As a long time American History buff I was struck by the arc Bushman presents. Jos. Smith was most decidedly not perfect. If this Joseph is saveable, then the rest of us have a chance. Hat's off to Bushman for not side-stepping polyandry, polygamy, deception of Emma, character assasination of associates, and many other "thickets" in which the image of Joseph is caught.

The Smith of Bushman's masterful pen (keystrokes?) emerges as a resilient defier of description. In the end, all we really know is that he pulled off an unequaled, herculean feat, and along the way left a trail of condundrums. At the very least Bushmans' Smith learned what Rembrandt knew - , "Do what you know and what you don't know becomes revealed." (paraphrasing)

Bushman takes us into the mind of a "doing" Smith whose vision expanded over and over again. When he thought himself finished with his mission, a flood of "revelations" would fill the vacuum, and off he'd be, unfolding a new and different emphasis for God's people. Then again, he'd declare his work for God finished, and again a flood of knowledge would fill his being. This cycle repeats over and over, and creates a fascinating character arc, as Bushman seeks to show us how Joseph thought about this process himself. Joseph did what he knew was to be done, and then more was revealed. The artist and the prophet know what it takes to get new knowledge...one must recognize the divine as it comes to the soul and then act on it, damn the conseqences. This takes practice, and failure many times. Bushman leaves us not surprised at the failures. For a plow boy to become a nation builder/prophet of God, the plowboy must be a Man-O-Action, an indefatigable optimist. Bushman makes this abundantly clear for Joseph Smith. The title "Rough Stone Rolling" is apt.

Bushman protrays the restless motivator, the endless innovator, the defier of convention, the synthesizer of civilizations, the deceptive husband, the flawed judge of character, the loyal defender of friends, a frontier firebrand, the forgiver, the virtiolic protestor, the militant, the passifier. Whew!!

The culmination was that Smith's actions created a trajectory towards inevitable calamity. Bushman explores how Joseph thought about the the fusion of theorcracy with democracy, Abrahamic marriage and monogamy, Kabbalah and Masonry, Politics and Prophecy, nation building and family knitting, ongoing revelation and canonized dogma, anti-creed yet ritualized religion making. In all these Bushman treats the paradoxes with a quizzical yet respectful awe. I appreciated his willingness to say "we don't know why" when we truly don't why Joseph put himself in almost inextricable positions. So much of it is tragic.

After all is said, Bushmans' Smith is a very human force of nature/God which this reader finds unnerving and inspiring. Unnerving because I understand how the Corrills, Cowderys and Pratts would leave him; militancy, anger, steamrolling friends at the appearance of disloyalty, alpha-male swaggering, short term prophecy failure, subterfuge in marriage, and disregard for others boundaries. Inspired because he continued to shake his opponents off his heals until he left a legacy which trancended his weaknesses and moved millions, which is what he wanted, which is what he "prophesied".

With all his imperfections and inspirations intact, he "did what he knew" and finally that was all he could do.

Bushman make all this lucid with reserved, precise prose, tempered by the enormity of fitting this subject into one 600 page book. Given the outsized images previous biographers have offered, Bushman has crafted a superbly balanced treatment of an intimidating subject. Three Cheers!

Ralf...the person reviewing the book, is more or less saying that Bushman's view is that if we can't accept Joseph for who he is, the we have problems. But if we accept him for who he is, the good bad and the ugly, the everything else should work out.

Ralf cut and paste...“if the membership is prepared to believe that folk magic is a ‘preparatory gospel,’ then they no longer have to worry their ‘pretty little heads’ about Joseph’s money digging, or the use of peep stones.”link violation

Here is the full book review "
4.0 out of 5 stars Inoculation of the Saints
Reviewed in the United States ?? on October 6, 2008

"There is no question that Bushman has done the hard work of researching the life of Joseph Smith. Having read gobs of biographical material on the man, I still learned some important insights about in this book, and more importantly, about the change in "vision" the modern church has 200 years later with regard to their founding prophet and his teachings. Make no mistake--this is a good book, and I recommend it often.

But there is a side to this book that warrants discussion, and I hope it gets it here.

This book serves the church's agenda. With the advent of the internet, information about Joseph Smith is more readily available than ever before, and members of the church can find all manner of unsavory tidbits by simply Googling "Joseph Smith" as they sit down to prepare their Priesthood lesson. Translating with his face in a hat, with the peepstone in the bottom; a penchant for folk magic and treasure seeking; the questionable evolution of polygamy and in particular, the Fanny Alger "afair"; the REAL vision of Zion; the debacle of Zion's Camp. And so on.

The church can no longer keep the "not-so-faithful" history from it's members, and so they were faced with a dilema. How do we acknowledge the reality of Smith's life, without undermining the testimony of countless members of the church? The solution? Ask Richard Bushman to write this book, and provide not only the validation of those "unsavory tidbits", but follow them up with enough spin that it leaves the members satisfied that, although things are not as they thought they were, they are still okay.

That's called inoculation. You expose them to a modified version of the virus, which might make them uncomfortable, but it won't kill them. And once they get over it, then nothing they read on the internet or anywhere else will again damage their testimony.

I have written elsewhere on the internet page after page after page, highlighting the spin of Rough Stone Rolling, but I'll cite here a single, glaring example. In Chapter 3: Translation, Bushman says, "After 1828, Joseph could no longer see that magic might have prepared him to believe in a revelation of gold plates and translation with a stone. It did not occur to him that without magic his family might have scoffed at his story of Moroni, as did the minister who rejected the First Vision. Magic had played its part and now could be cast aside." He goes on to describe folk magic as a "prepatory gospel", without which, the REAL gospel could not have come forth.

Are you KIDDING ME!?

I am familiar with the phrase, "God works in mysterious ways," but Bushman is suggesting that God works with the occult to prepare His prophets, because otherwise, God Himself is not going to be convincing enough when He taps his boy, Joe, on the shoulder and says, "Hey, I have gold plates."

But if the membership is prepared to believe that folk magic is a "prepatory gospel," then they no longer have to worry their "pretty little heads" about Joseph's money digging, or the use of peep stones.

The book is replete with examples such as this, excusing away the many versions of the First Vision, the obvious conundrum with the Book of Abraham having been derived from a common funerary papyrus, the scandals of Fanny Alger and the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society, etc. So, while it is meticulously researched on the one hand, be very aware that Bushman provides an "interpretation" that is couched in that research and makes it sound like it is sound reasoning supported by the tenets of the church.

It's not. It's spin.

Okay. Now, I know how these reviews work, so feel free to shred this and mark it "Unhelpful" because I know many who have come here to find out about this book are not going to care for this review. I suspect it will be relegated quickly to dustbin of "unhelpful" reviews. But I suggest it MIGHT be more helpful to discuss this, rather than just trash me."

This person is fair; this does need discussion...but I am not sure what you point is...using a amazon book review, form people we have no idea who they are, as some sort of commendation of Richard Bushman.

 

[Markk]

Andrew Jenson writes of Martin Harris describing the translation of the BOM with Joseph using both seer stone and U&T.
Markk we do not have Martin Harris actually writing this anywhere ... this is a second hand account by Andrew Jenson...


Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 58.

Ralf…you used a reference here that was published in 2003, which is when the Church denied the stone in the hat…in 2004

Chuckle..you went did all that detective work,,, all my stuff came from Bushman on Joseph Smith Foundation site. Nice try, lots of work and a big Fat F for effort. chuckle.
More from Joseph Smith Foundation:
Today, despite his unfavorable view of Joseph Smith, Bushman serves on the National Advisory Board of the Joseph Smith Papers—and his book, Rough Stone Rolling, has sold over 100,000 copies. Bushman would later reflect, when commenting on Rough Stone Rolling, that his “shocking” new narrative was “a strain for a lot of people, older people especially.”

Bushman admitted during a 2005 FAIR Mormon conference, “. . . I do not feel that we have to protect Joseph Smith. . . . I take great pleasure in his flaws and in his weaknesses—they make him more appealing.”9 Nevertheless, as one honest reviewer of Rough Stone Rolling warned, “Those looking for a faith-promoting view of the prophet’s life may want to look elsewhere . . . .”Excommunicated member John Dehlin promotes Rough Stone Rolling as one of his “must have” resources for members transitioning away from the Church.

Responses from readers of Rough Stone Rolling reveal fruits that are destructive of faith:

Today, despite his unfavorable view of Joseph Smith, Bushman serves on the National Advisory Board of the Joseph Smith Papers—and his book, Rough Stone Rolling, has sold over 100,000 copies. Bushman would later reflect, when commenting on Rough Stone Rolling, that his “shocking” new narrative was “a strain for a lot of people, older people especially.”8

Bushman admitted during a 2005 FAIR Mormon conference, “. . . I do not feel that we have to protect Joseph Smith. . . . I take great pleasure in his flaws and in his weaknesses—they make him more appealing.”9 Nevertheless, as one honest reviewer of Rough Stone Rolling warned, “Those looking for a faith-promoting view of the prophet’s life may want to look elsewhere . . . .”10 Excommunicated member John Dehlin promotes Rough Stone Rolling as one of his “must have” resources for members transitioning away from the Church.

Responses from readers of Rough Stone Rolling reveal fruits that are destructive of faith:

LOL no detective work, LOL Ralf, I cut and pasted your quote, it took 1 second, it took me to the JS foundation website in about a second…I read the quote that was in less than full context, about ten seconds…I clicked on the endnote which took me to amazon .com…1 or 2 seconds… you still do not understand what you are even reading or pasting. So, go to the JS foundation quote you pasted and press the end note link at the end of the quote…and see where it takes you.

Do you feel you have to protect JS? Are you saying he needs protection? I disagree with RB holding back, but I give him credit for many other things…while you call him a liar and a fool.

 

[Richard7]

Ralf…you used a reference here that was published in 2003, which is when the Church denied the stone in the hat…in 2004

You are wasting your time Markk, what are you posting the above for.... I'm still waiting for some evidence which is not coming forth from you.
Mostly dodging and deflecting.

LOL no detective work, LOL Ralf, I cut and pasted your quote, it took 1 second, it took me to the JS foundation website in about a second…I read the quote that was in less than full context, about ten seconds…I clicked on the endnote which took me to amazon .com…1 or 2 seconds… you still do not understand what you are even reading or pasting. So, go to the JS foundation quote you pasted and press the end note link at the end of the quote…and see where it takes you.

Chuckle, deflection good buddy, are you running out of witnesses.

Do you feel you have to protect JS? Are you saying he needs protection? I disagree with RB holding back, but I give him credit for many other things…while you call him a liar and a fool.

I never called him a liar, more deflection and dishonesty Markk, show where I ever called him a liar... I said he was being dishonest (untrustworthy) and I stand by that. When one has to go outside to quote enemies, dishonest neighbors and false accusers, then what would you call it.
JS needs no protection, but liars, and fabricators seem to be the ones you are protecting or are just a naive follower of some very stupid people.

 

[Markk]

I never called him a liar, more deflection and dishonesty Markk, show where I ever called him a liar... I said he was being dishonest (untrustworthy) and I stand by that. When one has to go outside to quote enemies, dishonest neighbors and false accusers, then what would you call it.
JS needs no protection, but liars, and fabricators seem to be the ones you are protecting or are just a naive follower of some very stupid people.

Why is he untrustworthy ralf? What exactly did Bushman write that is dishonest and now clarified as untrustworthy?
I am not protecting anyone; I am just saying that I agree with RB when he says the church is not honest with the current narrative. An dthat the church has to make a choice between people like you (Grandma's) that can't emotionally deal with the truth, or the younger saints that actually read church history, who intellectually can't sweep it under the rug.

Give me a quote from Rough Stone Rolling, you said you read it, that you disagree with so much that you can call Bushman dishonest, untrustworthy, and a fool.

If Joseph Smith need no protection, tell me some of his shortcomings, specifically, and offer some back up

You are wasting your time Markk, what are you posting the above for.... I'm still waiting for some evidence which is not coming forth from you.
Mostly dodging and deflecting.

How is that deflecting, have you read the essays? Why did you quote an old manual when the new manuals teach a stone in the hat?
.

 

[Richard7]

Why is he untrustworthy ralf? What exactly did Bushman write that is dishonest and now clarified as untrustworthy?
I am not protecting anyone; I am just saying that I agree with RB when he says the church is not honest with the current narrative. An dthat the church has to make a choice between people like you (Grandma's) that can't emotionally deal with the truth, or the younger saints that actually read church history, who intellectually can't sweep it under the rug.

Why keep asking question when you should be providing answers, more deflection so get on with you proof and evidence and I suggest you quit using enemies of the Church as some of your sources. I know you don't agree with me, but you're a fan of Bushman and I understand why. I helps you justify why you left the Church.

Give me a quote from Rough Stone Rolling, you said you read it, that you disagree with so much that you can call Bushman dishonest, untrustworthy, and a fool.

I bought the Book years ago, read it and at the time thought little of it. I did not realize how many LDS would suffer faith crisis becasue of it.
I don't know where the book is right now, I may have throw it away.... but for sure I never lent it to anyone.

If Joseph Smith need no protection, tell me some of his shortcomings, specifically, and offer some back up

How is that deflecting, have you read the essays? Why did you quote an old manual when the new manuals teach a stone in the hat?
.

Read and replied to the Essays, not much there that proves your point, read it in one of the other topics we are debating in.

 

[Richard7]

Why keep asking question when you should be providing answers, more deflection so get on with you proof and evidence and I suggest you quit using enemies of the Church as some of your sources. I know you don't agree with me, but you're a fan of Bushman and I understand why. I helps you justify why you left the Church.




I bought the Book years ago, read it and at the time thought little of it. I did not realize how many LDS would suffer faith crisis becasue of it.
I don't know where the book is right now, I may have throw it away.... but for sure I never lent it to anyone.



Read and replied to the Essays, not much there that proves your point, read it in one of the other topics we are debating in.

Crickets Markk!

 

[Richard7]

More crickets Markk...

 

[Markk]

Why keep asking question when you should be providing answers, more deflection so get on with you proof and evidence and I suggest you quit using enemies of the Church as some of your sources. I know you don't agree with me, but you're a fan of Bushman and I understand why. I helps you justify why you left the Church.

ralf, how can I provide a answer if you do not provide me what he wrote? Just calling Elder Bushman a fool is not something that deserves and answer for, IMO.

I am nor really a fan of Bushman, I believe he falls short of a complete narrative. I prefer Vogel and Palmer. But I agree with Bush man 100% that the church teaches a false narrative and you and DB are showing this, in that no matter how many facts and truths are presented, you can‘t expand past the church false narrative. And this is one of the reasons I and staying on this policy, th either is that I am really exploring the records, mainly from LDS sources, and learning a lot. Both sides of the argument.

 

[Markk]

I bought the Book years ago, read it and at the time thought little of it. I did not realize how many LDS would suffer faith crisis becasue of it.
I don't know where the book is right now, I may have throw it away.... but for sure I never lent it to anyone.

Do you feel you hav e to protect others from the truth? In other words folks are no allowed to think on their own, but they should be content to be told what to believe?

 

[Markk]

Read and replied to the Essays, not much there that proves your point, read it in one of the other topics we are debating in.

Well, except that he used the seer stone and interpreter stones, in his hat to translate the BoM.

 

[Richard7]

ralf, how can I provide a answer if you do not provide me what he wrote? Just calling Elder Bushman a fool is not something that deserves and answer for, IMO.

I am nor really a fan of Bushman, I believe he falls short of a complete narrative. I prefer Vogel and Palmer. But I agree with Bush man 100% that the church teaches a false narrative and you and DB are showing this, in that no matter how many facts and truths are presented, you can‘t expand past the church false narrative. And this is one of the reasons I and staying on this policy, th either is that I am really exploring the records, mainly from LDS sources, and learning a lot. Both sides of the argument.

Do the homework, I gave you two videos to watch, if you want to see both side of any debate, do as I did.... I read Bushman and watched his live talks on Utube. Chuckle, false narrative and he teaches The New Mormonism...

 

[Richard7]

Do you feel you hav e to protect others from the truth? In other words folks are no allowed to think on their own, but they should be content to be told what to believe?

What I do it make sure I'm not responsible for someone els's faith crisis especially if I believe the Book is full of baloney!

Question not answered!
So Markk, how do you respond to what I copied from JS foundation, giving you heads up that yes this is a source I'm using. Unlike the sources you seem to not want me to know about... hmm

EDITED LINK VIOLATION--DO NOT LINK TO UNOFFICIAL MORMON SITES, ONLY LINKS TO BYU AND OFFICIAL CHURCH WEBSITE ALLOWED

Andrew Jenson writes of Martin Harris describing the translation of the BOM with Joseph using both seer stone and U&T.
Markk we do not have Martin Harris actually writing this anywhere ... this is a second hand account by Andrew Jenson...


Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 58.

Reply
Report

 

[Richard7]

Well, except that he used the seer stone and interpreter stones, in his hat to translate the BoM.

Chuckle Markk, Pres. Nelson stated that there are many accounts and that some accounts stated he used a seer stone in a hat... show where he committed himself to any of the many accounts. I suggest you view the video again to sharpen your memory... hmm

 

[Markk]

Chuckle Markk, Pres. Nelson stated that there are many accounts and that some accounts stated he used a seer stone in a hat... show where he committed himself to any of the many accounts. I suggest you view the video again to sharpen your memory... hmm

When he said that he either put the Urim & Thummim Seer Stone into the hat, and he picked you the hat and put it to his face.

Ralf he committed to both the Urim & Thummim and the Seer Stone being used at separate times...just like a cell phone.

 

[Markk]

Question not answered!
So Markk, how do you respond to what I copied from JS foundation, giving you heads up that yes this is a source I'm using. Unlike the sources you seem to not want me to know about... hmm

Volume 2: Behind Closed Doors documents the organized objective to rewrite Latter-day Saint history from within, unbeknownst to the general Church membership, during the 20th and 21st centuries. It details how Richard Bushman was a close friend of Leonard Arrington and his work is an outgrowth of Leonard Arrington and the New Mormon History undertaking to rewrite the Prophet Joseph Smith and remove him from ‘off his pedestal.’

I will answer that you just pasted a teaser for a book from a website. Tell what pages in the book, being you have read it. lay this out from the book, and I will give you, my assertion after I read it from the book.

Andrew Jenson writes of Martin Harris describing the translation of the BOM with Joseph using both seer stone and U&T.
Markk we do not have Martin Harris actually writing this anywhere ... this is a second hand account by Andrew Jenson...

Give me a cf, page or something so I can read it is context.

ittle is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 58.

I already responded to this ralf...this is a 2003 manual, and since then the church has updated their manuals...I even gave you a quote and linkk from one.

 

[Richard7]

I will answer that you just pasted a teaser for a book from a website. Tell what pages in the book, being you have read it. lay this out from the book, and I will give you, my assertion after I read it from the book.

Its a summary Markk, its a analysis of what's in the book... I'm not going to go through the book, but most of my statements are directly from her interviews and research on video.

Give me a cf, page or something so I can read it is context.

Why don't you just make a comment or give me your answer from what ever first hand account you can find?

I already responded to this ralf...this is a 2003 manual, and since then the church has updated their manuals...I even gave you a quote and linkk from one.

edited by mod--link violation

Andrew Jenson writes of Martin Harris describing the translation of the BOM with Joseph using both seer stone and U&T.
Markk we do not have Martin Harris actually writing this anywhere ... this is a second hand account by Andrew Jenson...

Faith Crisis, Volume 2: Behind Closed Doors—Leonard Arrington & the Progressive Rewriting of Mormon History​

During the 20th century, an organized objective to rewrite Latter-day Saint history from within, unbeknownst to the general Church membership, went head to head behind the scenes with traditional leaders of the Church. Meet the main players of this conflict: Leonard Arrington—progressive “Father of New Mormon History,” Ezra Taft Benson—traditionalist defender, and many other advocates of traditionalist and progressive Latter-day Saint history.
As traditionalists and progressives sparred during the 1970s-1980s, a covert cold war commenced in Salt Lake City, Utah, with the progressives spying on the traditionalists, and the traditionalists spying on the progressives. Secret informants, leaked documents, falsified reports, and even employed pseudonyms—all were part of this struggle to dominate Latter-day Saint history. But how did, and does, this secret conflict affect you? Progressives, working in the Church History Department and at Brigham Young University, claimed 40 years ago that it would take a generation to re-educate the Church. Where are we now in that re-education?
Availability: In stock
Faith Crisis, Volume 2: Behind Closed Doors—Leonard Arrington & the Progressive Rewriting of Mormon History quantity
EDITED--TOO MANY LINKS, PLUS LINKS GO TO UNOFFICIAL MORMON WEBSITE







Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 58.

Reply

 

[Markk]

Its a summary Markk, its a analysis of what's in the book... I'm not going to go through the book, but most of my statements are directly from her interviews and research on video.

LOL...you don't read and research...you just react to what I paste with blind cut and pastes. I have both here book ralf...just give me the pages. My guess is you don't have vol 2...it that true?

Why don't you just make a comment or give me your answer from what ever first hand account you can find?

Ralf, I am trying to have a conversation with you, if you are going to assert something back it up with a cf.

you wrote...

Andrew Jenson writes of Martin Harris describing the translation of the BOM with Joseph using both seer stone and U&T.
Markk we do not have Martin Harris actually writing this anywhere ... this is a second hand account by Andrew Jenson..

Okay, where is that written so I can read it in context. Is it in the "Historical Record?"