Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling

[FTC]

I really hope this doesn't get banned. I say with all sincerity that that is not my intention. I came across an audio interview with Richard Bushman over on mormonstories.org a while back. The owner of mormonstories did an interview of Richard's book. Here are the three audios:

http://mormonstories.org/podcast/Mormon ... nPart1.mp3
http://mormonstories.org/podcast/Mormon ... nPart2.mp3
http://mormonstories.org/podcast/Mormon ... nPart3.mp3

and the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Roug ... 1400077532

No, these guys aren't anti-mormons; not in the least from what I can determine. They are currently active members that prefer reality as opposed to all the "fluff". I think Richard Bushman is current Stake President, but don't quote me on that. In any case, I truly loved these audio interviews because someone finally did a scholarly work on the Joseph Smith that I have had a testimony of for a long time.

[jbalm]

I've read it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Many mormons in general (not necessarily those on this forum) want to believe that JS was perfect. But he was a man with the multitude of imperfections that all men have, including Moses, Abraham, Paul, etc.

Bushman did a good job of showing JS as a real human, rather than an idealized, too-good-to-be-true myth.

[Bircher]

do any of these cover JS and the seer stone, and other things anti's call magic or occult?

[FTC]

[quote]do any of these cover JS and the seer stone, and other things anti's call magic or occult?[/qoute]
Yep, it most certainly did. Covered that and Joseph's treasure hunting and polygamy and even nit-picky things like paintings that are out of season for the time they were reported as to have happened. Pretty much anything about Joseph that an anti- would love to use as dirt. Like I said, the two guys that give the discussion are current Temple recommend holders, so it is done in a really church friendly manner. But it still gets at as much truth as one can hope to get without actually having been there.

[Bircher]

just listened to the third one, it was pretty interesting. The guy being interviewed said he is a patriarch, he seems a little too open for someone with that type of position. Somethings aren't widely known for a reason, and I am not sure how much he should be saying, especially in his position. A guy like Quinn and other, whatever, but a Patriarch?

Not confirming or denying anything that was said, just a little odd that he would be that "open"

[masterdmjg]

he seems a little too open for someone with that type of position. Somethings aren't widely known for a reason, and I am not sure how much he should be saying, especially in his position. A guy like Quinn and other, whatever, but a Patriarch?

Not confirming or denying anything that was said, just a little odd that he would be that "open"

I went to a forum on the University of Wyoming campus and listened to Richard Bushman speak. His position, as far as I understood it, is that we shouldn't be afraid of the critics that are out there, or pretend they do not exist. In his opinion, acknowledging the critics and then responding to the criticism helps to paint a more fair, and realistic picture of the Prophet. It can possibly even strengthen our testimony of Joseph Smith. I remember listening to the first "mormon stories" podcast linked above, and thinking, it must have been extremely hard for Bushman to read all of those anti-Joseph books, and still keep his testimony of the Prophet. Yet, it appears he did just that. I have yet to listen to the third mp3, though, so I'll have to see what he says there. That is just what I remember him saying when he was talking about writing the book.

[Bircher]

I tend to agree... generally.. but some things are way too sacred to be discussed, and I am not talking about just Temple stuff.

I think we are in a catch 22. If we don't talk about certain things we can't do as much progressing as we should, and if we do discuss it, too many will be kept out because of the of the culture in which we live.

The GA's are not perfect, but they have studies and I am sure prayed about this stuff, and are doing it the way they are for a reason.

**shrugs shoulders**

[masterdmjg]

I tend to agree... generally.. but some things are way too sacred to be discussed, and I am not talking about just Temple stuff.

I think we are in a catch 22. If we don't talk about certain things we can't do as much progressing as we should, and if we do discuss it, too many will be kept out because of the of the culture in which we live.

The GA's are not perfect, but they have studies and I am sure prayed about this stuff, and are doing it the way they are for a reason.

**shrugs shoulders**

Wow, that mp3 did not end up going in the direction I thought it might. To me it is more fascinating, as it is thinking about the "translation" in a way I never had before. Strangely, I don't have a big problem with it. In Bushman's opinion, the Church should come out and "set the record straight" so to speak, but I think he's being very optimistic. I agree with you, the Church does things for a reason, and we can only speculate whether they knew the "real" story, which to me is kind of still up in the air (meaning what is the "real" history), or whether they learned about it later on. But I don't really feel like the Church necessarily needs to do anything.

The fact is, and it sounds kind of crass to say it this way, but while we believe the Church is led by revelation from Heavenly Father, it is also very similar to a business in so many respects. I remember feeling this way as a missionary sometimes - you are marketing the Church to the non-believers, and so you are going to give them the Church's story in the best, simplest light you can. I don't think there's any need to get disillusioned by this statement, it's just the way things work. As we talk about time and time again on this site, people say they want the "truth," but people generally don't want to hear it or accept it when they get it. It's too hard for them to change their views and enter a new paradigm of thinking. I have no doubt that if I brought this up with most of my family members, they would probably discourage me from ever listening or reading anything by Bushman again. But I don't really have a problem with what he said.

It's just like the polygamy part of Church history - is it there, can it be denied that it's there? Not a chance. But the Church avoids it like the plague, because the culture we are in now doesn't take anything in context, and usually won't take time to get the whole picture. So to avoid the topic is the safest route. I don't blame the Church for doing those PR moves. It's just a fact of life these days.

[masterdmjg]

I remember being pretty shocked the first time I learned Joseph Smith's version of the First Vision seemed to evolve over time. I literally thought the way we tell the story today was the exact way he told it, and the exact way it happened. To learn otherwise seems to lend itself over to those who would say the Prophet was a calculating, scheming, deceiver.

But one must remember that at 14 years old, Joseph probably couldn't even fathom that he would be a prophet to raise up Christ's church again on the earth. Different parts of the story probably gained importance as he gained more experience, as he translated the Book of Mormon, as he organized the Church, and as he began to do missionary work. It makes fine sense, if you think of it that way.

I've always listened to talks by the General Authorities in Conference, as well as read people's biographies and memoirs in publications, and I hear them speak of experiences they had that were apparently so moving, when they were three or four years old. Or their baptism, or receiving the Priesthood. I've often wondered if I do not have a terrible memory, because I can only vaguely remember those experiences, and I am not very old compared to say, President Monson. I've wondered, how can they recall something that happened eighty years ago with such descriptive detail? I wonder if sometimes our memories are somewhat manufactured in our imagination, but they are still a part of us, and so we may not exactly tell it "as it happened" to the smallest detail. I don't know if I've expressed myself clearly here, but I wonder if some of you have not wondered similar thoughts, and if this was not the case with Joseph. Not that he made up the whole thing, but that the small details may have changed in his conception over time.

Whether I've made it clear in my babblings, it is an interesting concept for me to imagine. I think the first time such a thought hit me was listening to some of the things Bushman said about the Prophet, that I had never heard or thought of before.

[Bircher]

I have told the same experience many different ways before, leaving out key details for brevity, depending on what was of particular interest, what would bore, what was pertinent, etc. It makes since the Prophet would do the same

[Bircher]

about half way through the second one, ( I Know I am going backwards) and I cannot disagree more with this Patriarch.

He said it was good enough for the Church just to be good, and basically that other religions were just as good.

Dude, if this religion was just "good" I would be saving a ton of $$ and finding something better to do on Sunday.

The thing is it is better than good, and there is nothing better I could be doing on Sunday. We may not like some of the stuff that happens or happened, some folks may have made some mistakes, but not the ones that we get blames for the most. The most controversial subjects are the ones that have solidified my testimony the most.

If it is just "good" as he says, it is a fraud and not worth my time. It is not a fraud, and no ones time could be spent better than in being a full part of it.

I am just shocked at this guy, and wonder if whoever is in charge of Patriarchs knows this guy just thinks the church is "good".

Am I blowing his comments out of proportion?

[masterdmjg]

about half way through the second one, ( I Know I am going backwards) and I cannot disagree more with this Patriarch.

He said it was good enough for the Church just to be good, and basically that other religions were just as good.

Dude, if this religion was just "good" I would be saving a ton of $$ and finding something better to do on Sunday.

The thing is it is better than good, and there is nothing better I could be doing on Sunday. We may not like some of the stuff that happens or happened, some folks may have made some mistakes, but not the ones that we get blames for the most. The most controversial subjects are the ones that have solidified my testimony the most.

If it is just "good" as he says, it is a fraud and not worth my time. It is not a fraud, and no ones time could be spent better than in being a full part of it.

I am just shocked at this guy, and wonder if whoever is in charge of Patriarchs knows this guy just thinks the church is "good".

Am I blowing his comments out of proportion?

I think you're actually talking about the first one, where he talks about the goodness of the Church being what compels him to participate, I hope I'm correct in assuming this. I don't really get the impression he is saying the Church is just "good." I don't know that I hear him saying other religions are just as good. He did make some sort of statement that everyone has some truth. That reminded me of a quote from Joseph Smith.

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.”
- Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 316.

President Hinckley was also well known for saying:

We, in effect, simply say to others, 'Bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it.'"
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2973

I would say it's his way (speaking again of Bushman) of saying he believes the Church is true, and good, but there is generally a lot of good in any religion. All are born with the Spirit of Christ. Those in other churches don't have all the truth, but they all have some, and they can still be good people. And those who say the LDS church is a fraud, that there is no good that comes from it, don't know what they're talking about.

[FTC]

about half way through the second one, ( I Know I am going backwards) and I cannot disagree more with this Patriarch.

He said it was good enough for the Church just to be good ...

Am I blowing his comments out of proportion?

haha! No, you're probably not blowing things out of proportion. I remember having similar thoughts when I heard Bushman talk about "just good". I accepted it that that is how he wanted to consider the church, but for me, the church may be "just good" - and then some more. Richard Bushman isn't any more perfect than any other church member. Despite that, I would still be Ok with receiving a Patriarchal Blessing from him. I'm grateful that he had enough interest in Joseph to truly understand the guy. Obviously, what Richard studied about Joseph's day-to-day and year-to-year doings isn't church cannon, but can there really be anything that could be? Recording techniques back then were only so reliable and none of us where there to experience it all first-hand. I, personally, had my testimony of Joseph increase because of what Bushman made known about Joseph's "foibles of human nature" (JS-H 1:28). I'm most grateful that Richard made Joseph Smith to be more like a neighbor or a friend rather than some Sunday School imaginary character of fantasy. I'll take Joseph Smith as a friend over a prophet any day of the week.

[Bircher]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, I just think he is off his rocker there. What a waist of time if it is just good. There are plenty of other "good" things that are less work

To me some of the stuff that shake others testimony help me to do things I have not been specifically commanded in

[masterdmjg]

I frankly love listening to Bushman. I got through all three podcasts, finally, some of them I listened to a couple times. I particularly like his views on what are "facts" and what is "history." Thanks for posting these.