I have seen this book mentioned on the forum a lot, so I ordered it on-line. I am enjoying it. He states right up front that his argument is that JS was a prophet and once you accept that, his examination of the evidence is pretty good, if biased.
One thing I really cannot get my head around, and I have seen it mentioned here before, is WHY all the fuss and bother to get the plates and the urim and thumim, (before we even get to te breastplate and Liahona?) when JS didn't USE them! They sat on the table between him and whoever was scribing and he looked in the hat with either the urim and thumim or the peep stone (no angel brought that incidentally). Why did he need all that stuff? He could have used the peep stone (with the hat) and there would have been no digging, no upset over the stolen pages, no people searching for the plates etc etc.

Ummmm is it just me, or does that all just not make sense?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2014 12:09AM by fluhist.

None of it makes sense. From the so-called First Vision forward it's all part of Joseph Smith's Magical Mystery Tour.

Thanks Tom. Tell me, do you see it as ALL being made up, including the witnesses etc, or are there little bits of truth that have been thoughily exaggerated?

How many of the witnesses stuck with the church? I believe all of them had left before Joe even died. The fact that they didn't actively speak out and expose themselves as frauds/dupes doesn't really mean much. The church teaches that these witnesses and early apostles left because of their own pride, but the truth is that they say Joe for what he really was.

David Whitmer did speak out about the changing revelations and the changing priesthood. Rough Stone Rolling includes the account of the "restoration of the high priesthood". Not sure if you've gotten there yet. It wasn't along the banks of a river. It didn't involve Peter, James, and John. It DID includes tales of demonic possession. It also happened well AFTER the church was "restored". Why doesn't TSCC teach this story instead of the restoration story in the missionary discussions? Why don't they note the late addition of these details to the D&C?

Another bizarre story from Rough Stone Rolling is the whole Kirtland temple "endowment". He doesn't share the faith-promoting details that mormons like to talk about now, because they were made up decades after the fact.

The book also includes details on Jesus and Co. visiting the Kirtland temple. I don't know if this was ever discussed during Joseph's life. The "revelation" was recorded by Oliver's brother, and added to the D&C long after Joe was gone.

I always found it hard to believe that Oliver would abandon Joe after seeing John the baptist, Peter, James, John, Jesus, Moses, Elijah, etc... He had a PERFECT knowledge that the church was true, right? It's makes a lot more sense once you realize that it was all made up.

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.'"
https://archive.org/stream/addresstoallbeli00whit#page/26/mode/2up

"I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it— loth to give it up— but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public congregation that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire superstructure fell a heap of ruins"
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letterbook-2?p=69

"Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses, I said to him, 'Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?' Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.'"
https://archive.org/stream/millennialstar10444eng#page/698/mode/2up

"An anecdote touching this subject used to be related by William T. Hussey and Azel Vandruver. They were notorious wags, and were intimately acquainted with Smith. They called as his friends at his residence, and strongly importuned him for an inspection of the "golden book," offering to take upon themselves the risk of the death-penalty denounced. Of course, the request could not be complied with; but they were permitted to go to the chest with its owner, and see where the thing was, and observe its shape and size, concealed under a piece of thick canvas. Smith, with his accustomed solemnity of demeanor, positively persisting in his refusal to uncover it, Hussey became impetuous, and (suiting his action to his word) ejaculated, 'Egad! I'll see the critter, live or die!' And stripping off the cover, a large tile-brick was exhibited. But Smith's fertile imagination was equal to the emergency. He claimed that his friends had been sold by a trick of his; and 'treating' with the customary whisky hospitalities, the affair ended in good-nature."
https://archive.org/stream/originriseprogre00tuck#page/n37/mode/2up

"Brother Briggs then asked (William Smith), 'Did any others of the family see them.'
'Yes,' said he; 'father and my brother Samuel saw them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyrum and others of the family.'
'Was this frock one that Joseph took with him especially to wrap the plates in?'
'No, it was his every-day frock such as young men used to wear then.'"
http://books.google.com/books?id=stQ_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&source=bl&ots=PoElLGRsQL&sig=eb6WIzn9BTF8FDJF3gFKjz2667I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=76r3U8iBHJPeoATr0YCQDg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

"He set them to continual prayer, and other spiritual exercises, to acquire this lively faith by means of which the hidden things of God could be spiritually discerned; and at last, when he could delay them no longer, he assembled them in a room, and produced a box, which he said contained the precious treasure. The lid was opened; the witnesses peeped into it, but making no discovery, for the box was empty, they said, 'Brother Joseph, we do not see the plates.' The prophet answered them, 'O ye of little faith! how long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you. and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins, and for a holy and living faith which cometh down from heaven.' The disciples dropped to their knees, and began to pray in the fervency of their spirit, supplicating God for more than two hours with fanatical earnestness; at the end of which time, looking again into the box, they were now persuaded that they saw the plates."
https://archive.org/stream/ahistoryillinoi00shiegoog#page/n256/mode/2up

Great links!

There has to be some truth mixed in to make it sound authentic, but for the most part it's all fantasy. Why fantasy? Because most of it (meaning just about everything) was retrofitted with smoke & mirror, bell & whistle stuff. The original First Vision (if there actually was one) got embellished over time until we ended up with the approved version in the PoGP. JS may have prayed, which is truth, but the story became fantasy after the first embellishment.

"do you see it as ALL being made up, including the witnesses etc, or are there little bits of truth that have been thoughily exaggerated?"


Your question reminds me of what I thought was a great post on another website, The Salty Droid, that concerns itself with modern day con-artists, particularly the Internet-oriented fraudsters. I liked it so much I saved it. It's about how the deceived become the deceivers and I think it perfectly applies to Joseph Smith and Mormonism as well:


The commenter is responding to the statement: "It’s tricky when badguys are teaching goodguys to be badguys as part of their badguy ways", and he writes:


"That’s exactly it… and they have a formula for it too. Modeled after the great deciever himself: Tell 9 parts truth to establish trust and “good vibes” and then introduce 1 part lie, which is much easier to swallow and believe in after so much “truthiness.” Then, let rest and at the next stage, continue with 9 parts lie, but seal it up with one part truth so the ending lends credence to everything else.

As long as the beginning and end are true and the middle has elements of truth, it passes the mental litmus test with flying colors… and away you go. The principle itself is a fractal of sorts as we see the same pattern in linguistics.

example: Acocdrnig to reesrach at Cabmrdige Unirevstiy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

And despite the great work being done on this blog, if they can hit a stride and maintain enough sheeple in their following… whether of luck like James Ray or “skill” like Frank Kern… the crowd itself acts as a “lead in truth” giving them the ability to progress their filth faster and faster with less pushback and still ‘goodguys’ get behind them to give them marketplace credibility (heroine to a sociopath). Masses also give them a deflection tool for moments when their humanity unfortunately tries shining through.

It’s like what Jimmy Cricket said so eloquently upon leaving Pinocchio to chase the dream of being a super-star… only to realize he was really a slave (interesting correlation is it not?)…

“What’s an actor want with a conscience anyways?!”

And that’s the problem… these are not models of success… they are actors. Actors pretending to be what they know a market -and their own perverse sub-culture- wants, regardless of their ability to produce their claims.

That’s the problem, it is the (knowingly and deceitfully) blind leading the (unknowingly innocent) blind down a path of fraud and manipulation… and they hide behind their claims of ‘helping people’"
****************
From the comments section of this article:
http://saltydroid.info/bob-proctor-lanny-morton-six-minute-suckcess/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2014 06:26PM by 2+2=4.

Go listen to Dehlin's interviews with him on Mormon Stories. When asked by John to bear his testimony, Bushman sidesteps it by saying he believes in the goodness of the church.

Thanks mindog. I think there are good people in tscc (I was one, who REALLy tried _ you too huh?) but when to get to all the carrying on about LITTLE things like sleeves in dresses and white shirts, I get lost in the tangle. Surely simply being there for people who are ill, lost or struggling is SO much more important. Then of course we get to polygamy and racism and I am off the chart.

I will definately see what I can find on Mormon Stories.

The other thing to is, if you've been learning about church history from other outside sources, as you read RSR, you'll find places where there are distinct voids of information. I never actually finished the book, but I remember several times reading it when there was some backstory or other information that was obviously missing from the narrative that Bushman tries to weave together.

His book is "more" open and "more" honest than other LDS friendly early church histories, but he still maintains the policy of obfuscation by omission. That is, in the end, he does his best to put the best face on events, whose actual meaning would be made more clear by more objective sources.

I do agree with the notion that the book is designed to be a form of inoculation. Where Mormons (like my parents for example, they have a copy in mint condition!) can display it on a book shelf, skim it once in awhile, look at all the footnotes, and put it and their doubts back on a prominent bookshelf and sleep peacefully at night.

I think Bushman did what any good lawyer would do with incriminating evidence--bury it in paper. That's right! How many TBMs bought the book and didn't read it? Plenty.

See, there's a natural inclination to read Bushman's initial support of Horny Joe, then see the length of RSR and say, "Gee, he must have proof in there and there's a lot of it." At least that's what my wife's TBM family did when they decided to read it as a book club. Did they read the whole book? No fucking way! They did, however, bear testimony to each other. The Boner.

The reason for so many inconsistencies is that it became an evolving story. The term "Urim and Thummim" was not even used until years after the BOM was translated. Many things are back-dated. Look at the first vision for example.

You might enjoy this review of the book:
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/pomopedia/Rough_Stone_Rolling/return

That was a great review.
I had read some of Bushman's book and knew that he was leaving out many details.

Bushman is very biased and he states that clearly more than once. So right up front it is a Mormon historian doing apologetic work in Rough Stone Rolling.

As a historian it is an impossibility for him to not know intimately the details he left out to protect his own view of how the faithful should percieve a less than perfect prophet and that my friends is called the rape of informed consent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2014 09:50AM by AmIDarkNow?.

Did JS do shrooms? That could help explain some of his actions.

Probably used psylacibin cubinses, grows well in up-state New York especially around horses..

Check out the map here regarding its distribution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_cubensis

Shroomers like speculate about this one, but there's no evidence they were used before the mid 20th Century.

The fly agaric (A. mucaria) is also offered as a candidate from time to time, but the reality is it's quite toxic, and they're likely would've been casualties if use was widespread.

Ordinary rotgut whiskey from the time was probably sufficient to induce the sort of "distortions" that were claimed; William Law doesn't identify Smith as a drunkard, but there are surviving stories of his being inebriated while preaching.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2014 05:31AM by SL Cabbie.

I am just about done reading it. Although it shows Smith as a very interesting character, perhaps one of the most interesting figures of his century. .. It does little to prove he was a true prophet as he keeps getting things wrong again and again. And the polygamy. If he was just trying to restore it if he was having such a hard time with it, why not stop at one or two extra wives. Why did he need 30? Honestly for all the grief Emma gave him and all the concealment... He didn't need to be Martyred, as he would die from stress in another year or two.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2014 11:02AM by ultra.

Too many things about JS and early church don't make sense!

You might like MormonThink.com -- Lots of great, reliable information.

THANKYOU SO MUCH to all of you!! I have been reading and listening furiously. It has become a really full on research project. It is great! I didn't expect it to be like this, but it is SO interesting. After 20 years out of tscc, I am glad to see some really thoughtful and well reasoned writing in both spheres. It is good to read some things that do not have an agenda, unlike the book itself which is of course a defence of JS. But while you may be able to defend some things, there is SO much which is TOTALLY indefensible.

I appreciate the input of all of you very much indeed!

Thanks INDEED!!!

A friend gave me a copy of "Rough Stone Rolling." I looked up
three topics in the index that I was familiar with the
documentary record about, and looked up how Bushman dealt with
them--the First Vision, the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook
plates.

In each instance Bushman goes AGAINST the documentary evidence
and spouted the Church line. He sold out his standing as a
HISTORIAN and kissed up to the Church. But, I guess when you've
covenanted in the Temple to give it ALL to the Church, then your
intellectual honesty can't stand in the way.

If a book which claims to be a "no holds barred--warts and all"
biography has to be dishonest in its presentation of history,
then that's a HUGE indication of how fake Mormonism is.

Good research there. I knew Bushman would only go so far in telling the truth.

Those covenants can really get in the way, but nevertheless Bushman is a highly subversive individual, the John Dehlin of an earlier generation. He's obviously relished playing with self-important authority figures since 1966. I give him a lot of credit. He's a great historian overall, and in spite of its limitations I consider RSR to be a very good book and a huge blow against Mormon orthodoxy.

As a professional historian myself I find his book a huge let down. Bushman mentions a few uncomfortable facts most tbms may not even be aware, but his methodology is dubious. His chapters on the first visions are totally misleading. Besides, the sources/texts of the first visions can't be taken serious - as he does - as to Joseph's early life. They are even questionable as a source - and I am talking here about biographical data - to the claim of having had vision. There are no contemporary souces about JS from the time he claimed to have had this or any other visions. Yet Bushman takes the FV-texts as evidence for JS's life. I used to believe in the FV once - even if it might have been a hallucination with JS laying the grass being in trance. Today I don't think he ever had any of those visions at all.

Bushman cites Brodie's first edition from 1945 or so, but not the expanded 2. edition from the late 1960s. Shoddy workmanship! His book, important though it is, stands currently on my shelf next the Longerich's excellent biography of Heinrich Himmler. I will remove it soon. I need the spce for better books.