Comments on Life On Gold Plates: Bushman's Introduction to "Joseph Smith and His Cr...

Jen,The trouble with RfM is that they do not keep ...

2009-02-26T08:07:00.000-07:00

Jen,

The trouble with RfM is that they do not keep an archive. John has indeed posted on RfM before, and to my knowledge the last time he did so was when he retired the MormonStories podcast. John doesn't seem to fit in well on that site, of course, there are some very aggressive people there and John is far from that. Still, he has posted there and I'm not sure what context I would have brought that up in before on this site.

I saved his message but can't link to it because it has gone into the ether.

Thanks for stopping by!

In a comment you posted on August 15th I see you h...

2009-02-25T19:39:00.000-07:00

In a comment you posted on August 15th I see you have John Dehlin's name attached to RfM. I believe this is incorrect. You might want to check that. You are right that RfM allows ranting, however the Mormon Stories blog (now defunkt)moderated by John Dehlin was in my opinion very conservative compared to RfM.

Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed reading it and the thread.

I appreciate your comments. At the same time I dis...

2009-02-14T14:56:00.000-07:00

I appreciate your comments. At the same time I disagree with you on most points. You don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Others do.

You appear to equate being "courageous" to refuting the prophethood of Joseph Smith. I personally don't agree with you on that.

Beyond that, comparing Joseph Smith to L. Ron Hubbard, O. J. Simpson, and Warren Jeffs is a guilt by association gambit which I don't find fruitful in the discussion.

In a way, I am glad that Prof. Bushman is helping ...

2009-02-14T14:50:00.000-07:00

In a way, I am glad that Prof. Bushman is helping to open things up and to create an environment of understanding where so many have been, and are being, hurt. On the other hand, I'm skeptical and troubled about what he is doing. This issue of Mormon History is literally ruining lives and ripping families apart. Why not be brave and repudiate the Church for its dishonesty about its history instead of tip-toeing around this fact? One way to deal with Smith is to put forward explanations under which Joseph can be understood as a fallible man. I consider this special pleading and under cover apologetics, as far as the truth goes. However, it may be beneficial to those Mormons who are socially bound to the Church and need some way to reconcile their intellectual integrity with membership in the Church. Still, I admire Fawn Brodie more for her willingness to simply take a stand, given the evidence, combined with reasonable assumptions about human nature. If Bushman were to do what a fair jury would do and say "guilty", he would be excommunicated by the Church. So let the favorable interpretations begin. Of course, there are other interpretations of O.J. Simpson, too, to suit O.J.'s family and friends. But I admire those who will state the truth and not special plead or appeal to relativism when their client is on the line. Again, why not repudiate the Church's dishonesty directly while you look for ways to polish and shine up Smith? Though your approach is not the most courageous, it is at least somewhat courageous. People will get used to the idea of a "human" Smith just as they can get used to a "human" Warren Jeffs or L. Ron Hubbard.

pericles

In a way, I am glad that Prof. Bushman is helping ...

2009-02-14T14:44:00.000-07:00

In a way, I am glad that Prof. Bushman is helping to open things up and to create an environment of understanding where so many have been, and are being, hurt. On the other hand, I'm skeptical and troubled about what he is doing. This issue of Mormon History is literally ruining lives and ripping families apart. Why not be brave and repudiate the Church for its dishonesty about its history instead of tip-toeing around this fact? One way to deal with Smith is to put forward explanations under which Joseph can be understood as a fallible man. I consider this special pleading and under cover apologetics, as far as the truth goes. However, it may be beneficial to those Mormons who are socially bound to the Church and need some way to reconcile their intellectual integrity with membership in the Church. Still, I admire Fawn Brodie more for her willingness to simply take a stand, given the evidence, combined with reasonable assumptions about human nature. If he were to do what a fair jury would do and say "guilty", he would be excommunicated. Of course, there are other interpretations of O.J. Simpson, too, to suit O.J.'s family and friends. But I admire those who will state the truth and not special plead or appeal to relativism when their client is on the line. Again, why not repudiate the Church's dishonesty directly while you look for ways to polish and shine up Smith? Though your approach is not the most courageous, it is at least somewhat courageous. People will get used to the idea of a "human" Smith just as they can get used to a "human" Warren Jeffs or L. Ron Hubbard.

pericles

Jim W, I really appreciate your comments.

2008-11-10T22:19:00.000-07:00

Jim W, I really appreciate your comments.

I've been a member of the Church for over 50 years...

2008-11-10T22:00:00.000-07:00

I've been a member of the Church for over 50 years. I was born and raised in the Salt Lake City area and I have not experienced the "cover up" of the unsightly issues of Church history that seem to take others by surprise. I am not a scholar by any means but the fact of polygamy, Joseph Smith's imperfections, along with the rest like the Mountain Meadows Massacre really don't bother me. I liked the comment that someone made that they would trust Joseph to restore the Church but they wouldn't deposit money in a bank run by him. Church history isn't perfect and the people who made it certainly weren't perfect either.

The point I guess I am trying to make is that history and historians are somewhat like journalists reporting the news. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, they color the information they pass on with their own values, views, and interpretations. Even journal entries are written from the writers point of view. There is no "totally factual" history. Look up someone like Thomas Jefferson on the net and you'll get many differing points of view about the man from different historians. Some praise him, while others vilify him. It's hard to believe it's the same person they are talking about.

Church history is much the same way. There are those who sugar coat it and those who rub it raw and ugly. I believe the truth is somewhere in between most of the time.

I also believe that we, as Church members, tend to romanticize our past and present leaders into some kind of infallability and a level of perfection only one Man has ever achieved. To not allow our Prophets or GAs to be human is to fall into an impossible trap. No one can make the grade.

One of Joseph Smith's goals was for each and every member to make "their calling and election sure'. This is only done with a truly personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ. It is not something that is done overnight and not even JS or BY or any of the others got there overnight. Did Joseph err in some of the ways Doctrine was applied? You betcha!! Does it shake my faith? No. A careful reading of the Bible will illlustrate that all of the prophets and apostles written about had foibles and weaknesses. Noah got drunk. Abraham had his issues. The list could go on and on. Paul had a major disagreement with Peter and others. Does that diminish their standing as Apostles and Prophets? I don't believe it does. If we truly cultivate this personal relationship with God and His Son, all issues of the percieved imperfection of his servants becomes irrelevant.

To those who feel disaffected or shunned by more mainstream members, please forgive us, we are imperfect as well. The Savior would not have us act as such. Some of us are not as far along as others and some of us are by far too closed minded to allow any form of doubt to enter in. Just as you struggle with who you are, I believe we do too but don't want to be reminded. I just hope that somewhere along the line, I didn't fall into that trap.

Thanks, coach. You might also like my two recent p...

2008-11-04T11:10:00.000-07:00

Thanks, coach. You might also like my two recent posts here:

http://tinyurl.com/searchcertain

http://tinyurl.com/isdoubtsin

Thank you for posting this article. Like many with...

2008-11-04T11:02:00.000-07:00

Thank you for posting this article. Like many within the church who have learned of some troubling things in our LDS historical narrative, I have struggled knowing what this new information means.
I have been troubled. On one hand I have felt grateful for a more complete picture, but on the other hand I have felt sad, misled, angry, betrayed, confused, alone, etc...
I have no desire to destroy the faith of others by "dumping" my concerns on them. I have witnessed the good that has come from my lifelong active participation in the church. But my struggles during the last couple of years have left me questioning the very core of my once rock-solid beliefs.
Thank you Dr. Bushman for reaffirming that there are some who question (or possibly leave) the church, not because they are not following the commandments (I have been a worthy temple recommend holder, full tithe payer, obeyed the word of wisdom, law of chastity, sustained my local leaders and general authorities, actively served in ward and stake callings ranging from YM president, EQ president, and in a bishopric).
I am at a crossroads of sorts in my life. I believe that my children will benefit from active participation in the church, but I worry about their struggle of faith when they will exposed to the information which paints more of a complete picture.
Regardless, thank you for the posting the article and for providing a safe and positive outlet for people like me to work through the no small task of understanding my place in the universe.

That book really kindled my interest in history. I...

2008-09-18T08:26:00.000-06:00

That book really kindled my interest in history. I bought it through the mail from Deseret Book and the rest is history.

BTW:Jesse has also included photographs of the man...

2008-09-17T19:35:00.000-06:00

BTW:

Jesse has also included photographs of the manuscripts, so if you are into eyestrain, you can compare the transcription against the original document. This becomes important in the 1832 account of the First Vision, where Joseph Smith give his age when the events happened. He wrote the age in a "between-line" insertion, and wrote the age in Arabic numerals. The age has traditionally (habitually?) been transcribed as "16th year of my age," but as the manuscript showy, the "y" from the "heard my cry" in the immediate above line crosses over the "16" in the insertion, so it is possible that the "16" may actually be a "15," which corresponds to the other accounts of the First Vision.

The maps are absolutely incredible, and the mini-biographies help us keep track of who's who. The paper is very sturdy archival paper, and the binding is reinforced, so the book should really last the ages.

From a review of Personal Writings of Joseph Smith

See larger image

See 1 customer image
Share your own customer images
Publisher: learn how customers can search inside this book.
Please tell the publisher:
I'd like to read this book on Kindle

Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Hardcover) at Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Writings-Joseph-Smith/dp/1573457876/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221701596&sr=1-1

A lot of it comes down to what a person expects, a...

2008-09-11T14:04:00.000-06:00

A lot of it comes down to what a person expects, and then what a person decides to believe based on whatever evidence there is.

"Evidence" is never interpretation free. Thanks for stopping in!

Lifeonaplate, thanks for responding so quickly. I ...

2008-09-11T13:58:00.000-06:00

Lifeonaplate, thanks for responding so quickly. I agree with you completely. "Historical Truth" is this tremendous beast that you can never pin down; you can, however, get a sense of accumulating weight of evidence. By the time you get to the Nauvoo Expositor, the evidence is wide and plentiful. So, I guess that's the big, black box of ugliness I'm referring to. Like I said, nobody has ever described my process and perspective as charitably as Bushman does.

My second point was not about the diverse ways that people leave the church. It was that history and present are interlinked! That is the "same animal" to which I was referring.

Again thanks, Lifeonaplate. I have a feeling you'll get the last word in. :)

Thanks for your comments. As a person who doesn't ...

2008-09-11T13:32:00.000-06:00

Thanks for your comments. As a person who doesn't believe in little "facts" of history that can be dug from the past and displayed as-is in order to represent the "truth" about history, I think your disconnect with Bushman falls along that line as well. I sincerely doubt Bushman would say that all who leave the church are thereafter "miserable." This particular introduction wasn't intended to describe every path out of the Church. The human experience is wide enough that there will be many who stay, or leave, who feel some aspect of the Introduction doesn't speak to their experience. That is pretty unavoidable.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

This article described my process of separation fr...

2008-09-11T13:27:00.000-06:00

This article described my process of separation from the church fairly accurately. Actually, I've never heard anyone from a church orientation get it so right. That's progress. However, he underestimates the power of the transformation. My transformation was as complete as possible; I couldn't ever go back to church after my process. (And I'm very happy with my decision.)

He misses another thing, as well: he refers too often to the "internet sites" where you garnish this "negative" information about Joseph Smith and the early church, as if it's illicit and pornographic filth. The truth is that most of the profoundly damning information I read came from scholarly work and histories - even personal family histories! (All my polygamous ancestors!) So, he makes the information sources out to be sinister, and the users of that information to be weak, unknowledgeable and confused. There is a lot of accurate, damning evidence on Joseph Smith, and there are a lot of faithful, intelligent people coming to good, solid conclusions on the basis of that evidence.

Thirdly, in the face of my transformation, his conclusion -the four steps to remember- seem a little trite. They are laced by with the same patronising manipulation that, I feel, characterises the church. In fact, I recognise point one and two from the Commitment Pattern that we used on my mission. ("Step One: Resolve concerns: Restate the concern." "Step two: Resolve concerns: When all else fails, testify.") It's manipulative: I know because I used to do it, of course, in the spirit of love and concern!

There is another part of the process that he misses completely. In the mind of the sincere doubter, the convergence of doubt regarding the historical basis for the church converges with doubt about the current direction. And you suddenly see that the church has been seamlessly wrong every time, throughout its entire history: on poligamy, on women, on African Americans and the priesthood, on homosexuality, on guilt/unworthiness/exclusion, etc., etc., etc...and now with the church marching lock-step with the radical American Christian right. Need I say more? It's all part of the same animal. So, I recommend to Bushman that he include that bit, as well, in future analyses of why people leave. It's an important component of the decision to let go.

The last point: nobody ever recognises the courage and resilience it takes to leave the church. It is the single most difficult thing I have ever done. And it has been very personally rewarding. So, more advice to Bushman: you'll have to weaken our resolve and undermine the reward an we feel living free in a wonderful world of nuance.

I love the church for all of the good things it has given me, and I forgive it for all the damage it caused me. I'm not bitter, resentful and distrustful like may post-Mormons. I take my hat off to the church, my family and my faithful ancestors. Maybe I wouldn't have left if I hadn't been so alarmed by the big black box of buried ugliness that jumped out at me. But, I have no idea how you can address that ugly history now. The church is in a bind: it has to keep burying and ignoring, and it the meantime, the re-telling of history gets shallower and more revisionist lest the truth creep out!

I think it's pretty misleading to characterize the...

2008-09-11T11:28:00.000-06:00

I think it's pretty misleading to characterize the LDS practice of men being "sealed" to more than one wife as practicing polygamy. In just about any common usage of the term "polygamy" the speaker would be talking about more than one wife where all are currently alive. It may be that some don't like the aspect of "Men" being allowed multiple companions in eternity, but the simple logic is that they won't if the LDS church and priesthood is false and if it is not false, well then...

You are so awesome Blair! I love reading your work...

2008-09-08T23:26:00.000-06:00

You are so awesome Blair! I love reading your work.

As a reminder, this website does not accept links ...

2008-08-27T09:32:00.000-06:00

As a reminder, this website does not accept links from anonymous persons to websites overtly critical of the LDS Church.

Thanks for the comments, Bull. I completed a more ...

2008-08-22T12:48:00.000-06:00

Thanks for the comments, Bull. I completed a more robust plural marriage post earlier in the week. You can read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/6k3dt7

BTW, thanks for all of the links. However, the fac...

2008-08-22T10:43:00.000-06:00

BTW, thanks for all of the links. However, the fact remains that after 40 years of activity in the church I remained ignorant of those facts. I guess that the church no longer considers them important, but I do and knowing them caused them to seriously reevaluate my beliefs. A more detailed response on my blog, but thanks for listening. I enjoyed your post and responses and I really enjoyed Bushman's book as well as the podcasts he did with John Dehlin.

Re: http://www.mormonsandpolygamy.org/The first st...

2008-08-22T10:40:00.000-06:00

Re: http://www.mormonsandpolygamy.org/

The first statement is incorrect. Mormons DO practice polygamy. Ask Dallin Oaks how many wives he has. The answer is two although the first is deceased. He is in legal compliance with the law, but Mormons believe that marriage is eternal so doesn't that make him a polygamist?

The doctrine of polygamy is still in force and still practiced and still seen as something to be looked forward to in the afterlife. However the practice has been confined to exclude more that none living wife.

Anonymous:Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I find...

2008-08-22T08:21:00.000-06:00

Anonymous:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I find it more than unfortunate that anyone would cast judgment about a widow remarrying. My mom is a widow and has remarried; I don't believe she has received any flak for it in the least; it seems like a most reasonable thing to do, actually.

Anyway, you said "It seems that very few devout old-timers are able "to handle the truth" and 'new mormon history'.
Listening to another fairy tale about Josephs Smiths 'beloved Emma' always makes me wonder about all the other not so beloved viwes."

The problem I have with such a view is that, given my studies, I have come not to "distrust" Mormon history, or even to view the so-called "New Mormon history" as inherently trustworthy, either. There are inaccuracies and mistakes in both, from my perspective. History can be a deceptive concept. As I note elsewhere on this blog, which is usually more about history, James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle described the everyday view of history:

"History is what happened in the past."...[This view] supposes that historians must return to the past through the surviving records and bring it back to the present to display as "what really happened." The everyday view recognized that this task is often difficult. But historians are said to succeed if they bring back the facts without distorting them or forcing a new perspective on them. In effect, historians are seen as couriers between the past and the present. Like all good couriers, they are expected simply to deliver messages without adding to them. This everyday view of history is profoundly misleading... History is not "what happened in the past;" rather, it is the act of selecting, analyzing, and writing about the past. It is something that is done, that is constructed, rather than an inert body of data that lies scattered throughout the archives.

I largely subscribe to their views on that subject; I believe that the "noble dream" of objectivity is practically impossible. As Davidson and Lytle explain, "historians generally deal with probabilities, not certainties," and like them, I "leave you to draw your own conclusions" after I have related my own.

For better or for worse, historians inescapably leave an imprint as they go about their business: asking interesting questions about apparently dull facts, seeing connections between subjects that had not seemed related before, shifting and rearranging evidence until it assumes a coherent pattern. The past is not history; only the raw material of it.

I have found much in the history of the Church that is well-documented and reliable, and additionally, subject to a witness from the Holy Ghost.

I suppose I am one of those "deeply shattered" mem...

2008-08-22T03:07:00.000-06:00

I suppose I am one of those "deeply shattered" members. My questions about certain aspects of church history, have caused disturbing reactions from members in my ward. And I feel totally isolated and ignored. The whitewashed or "faithfull history" feels like deceit. My toes curl up when I during church meetings listen to testimonies that they "with every fibre of their being" KNOW things history has proven false. It has made me loose trust in members and church leaders. It seems that very few devout oldtimers are able "to handle the truth" and 'new mormon history'.
Listening to another fairy tale about Josephs Smiths 'beloved Emma' always makes me wonder about all the other not so belowed viwes.

Also claims about the church not practising polygamy any longer is another half truth. Female widows can not be sealed to another man eternally, but only marry for time in the temple. Male widows can have another wife sealed to them for eternity. Doesn´t this mean that we still practice polygamy?

I was deeply dissapointed by the reactions from some ward members when I married a widow.She was bullied in RS by women who scorned her for being selfish and not enduring her widowhood until she could be reunited to the man, he was sealed to for eternity. I was told that I was being 'unfair' to the single nevermarried women in the church by marrying a vidow. And that I would be an administering angel eternally, instead of becoming a God.

I still believe JS was a great prophet, in spite of his mistakes and imperfections. Scores of apologists whitewashed and GA approved versions of church history makes it hard for me to trust church leaders, but just reinforce the nagging doubt I have. The many church historians, like Grant H. Palmer and Michael Quinn, being disfellowshipped or excommunicated for publishing their historical findings and theories is another push into inactivity for me and my wife.

If you check the links offered at the outset to no...

2008-08-20T13:19:00.000-06:00

If you check the links offered at the outset to notes on other seminar papers you'll see more about the witnesses; specifically S. Harper's paper.

Thanks for stopping by.

wow... no mention in all of this so far regarding ...

2008-08-20T01:23:00.000-06:00

wow... no mention in all of this so far regarding the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon?