Rough Stone Rolling

[mirkwood]

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I don’t have time to engage with the historical allegations on these videos.  But I will say the following, with the caveat that I’m just a random guy in the internet and cannot document any of this.  But, for whatever it’s worth to those who do know me, I will say that I personally am satisfied that the following points are true:

—I am familiar with the personal dealings of several of the principals of the Joseph Smith Foundation.

—Some of them, at least, are not good people.

—Some of them, at least, are not honest people.

—Some of them, at least, subscribe to a series of private beliefs that are weirder than any public commentator has, or perhaps could, possibly imagine.

—Whatever they say publicly—in their their personal conduct—some of the principals, at least, do not accept the priesthood/authority claims of the modern LDS Church; or of President Nelson in particular.

Maybe someday these individuals’ private apostasies will boil over into the public sphere—and maybe they won’t.  Maybe the people of whom I speak will spend the rest of their lives keeping up their public charades of loyalty both to the ethical code of Joseph Smith, and to the authoritative claims of the modern LDS Church.

But I would encourage anyone paying attention to their claims, to consider now which way they personally will go if/when the JFS formally breaks from the LDS church.  Because I believe there is a very strong chance that the public break is coming.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But I would encourage anyone paying attention to their claims, to consider now which way they personally will go if/when the JFS formally breaks from the LDS church.  Because I believe there is a very strong chance that the public break is coming.

Do you think they are waiting for Bushman to pass away? Grim question but it’s legit. The man is 90.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

Do you think they are waiting for Bushman to pass away? Grim question but it’s legit. The man is 90.

Who knows?  Denver Snuffer stayed in the church for decades; and even then he only left when they threw him out.  

[LDSGator]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Who knows?  Denver Snuffer stayed in the church for decades; and even then he only left when they threw him out.  

:: snickers ;: what about his brother Colorado Springs Snuffer? 
 

(sorry, I know that’s incredibly juvenile. Couldn’t help it) 

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But I would encourage anyone paying attention to their claims, to consider now which way they personally will go if/when the JFS formally breaks from the LDS church.

I'm not sure what this has to do with historical claims or even interpretation of claims. I understand the whole "character" thing when it comes to lawyering...destroy someone's character so they are viewed as an unreliable witness accordingly...sure. But it's also, technically, a logical fallacy and a courtroom trick rather than a legitimate way to find truth.

I have long been skeptical of a lot Richard Bushman's "history". In point of fact I'm skeptical of most history. History is incredibly unreliable when it comes to "fact". If someone does, somehow, point out a logical, fact based reason to view something a certain way, it's still logical and fact based regardless of that person's good or evil motive. To disregard the logic, fact-based reality because the revealer of said logic and fact has bad motives feels problematic. (Obviously there are problems with trusting them as well...which is not what I'm suggesting be done.)

Watching the videos now.... I'll have more to say, I'm sure.

(Edit: I realize what a can of worms this comment opens where I'm criticizing Bushman for not discrediting certain sources because of "character" when I'm arguing that character attacks are a logical fallacy. I can, actually, explain myself...but.... Hopefully it will lead to an interesting and informative discussion/debate. Writing all my thoughts in one post would be a novel. But we'll see how things go.)

Edited February 20, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Carborendum]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t have time to engage with the historical allegations on these videos. 

I'm not sure where this came from.  The videos were not critical of the Church or of Joseph Smith.  (I have no idea who the JFS is or where they lie on the spectrum.  I've only listened to these two videos).

I'll give a brief summary:

PART 1: (Only a setup for the second part. not required viewing. really boring)

• Rough Stone Rolling made a bunch of accusations of Joseph being a "money-digger".
• We need to actually look into the accusations to see if they are supported by black and white facts that are verifiable through historical records.
• Why?  Because apparently a LOT of individuals are leaving the Church because of these claims.

PART 2:

• Turns out that the claims cited in RSR are from critics who were jealous of the Church and the Smith family.
• The statements from the critics were all "verbal claims" which are not supported by verifiable historical records.
• The historical records show that the Smiths were very industrious people who were very honorable, God-fearing individuals.
• Many claims cannot be confirmed scientifically either way, but if the character of individuals is at the root of the search, we find that those who were critical of Joseph and the Church, they were proven liars on many occasions, and they led terrible lives.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure where this came from.  The videos were not critical of the Church or of Joseph Smith.  (I have no idea who the JFS is or where they lie on the spectrum.  I've only listened to these two videos).

I'll give a brief summary:

PART 1: (Only a setup for the second part. not required viewing. really boring)

• Rough Stone Rolling made a bunch of accusations of Joseph being a "money-digger".
• We need to actually look into the accusations to see if they are supported by black and white facts that are verifiable through historical records.
• Why?  Because apparently a LOT of individuals are leaving the Church because of these claims.

PART 2:

• Turns out that the claims cited in RSR are from critics who were jealous of the Church and the Smith family.
• The statements from the critics were all "verbal claims" which are not supported by verifiable historical records.
• The historical records show that the Smiths were very industrious people who were very honorable, God-fearing individuals.
• Many claims cannot be confirmed scientifically either way, but if the character of individuals is at the root of the search, we find that those who were critical of Joseph and the Church, they were proven liars on many occasions, and they led terrible lives.

History indicates that Jesus built his following – mostly upon the popularity of his miracles.   Most of his followers left over some point of doctrine they did not like.  Christianity as a whole did not blossom in history until after the Apostles were gone and the doctrines became more in line with philosophies and especially the politics of the times.  

History seems to go in cycles. 

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am familiar with the personal dealings of several of the principals of the Joseph Smith Foundation.

Without detail, can you say how you are familiar? Personal? Or hearsay?

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Some of them, at least, subscribe to a series of private beliefs that are weirder than any public commentator has, or perhaps could, possibly imagine.

Can you state what these weird beliefs are?

[Carborendum]

Can anyone explain to me what the problem is whether true or not? 

• If he was hired by someone else as manual labor in a pit or mine, he got paid for it (like $1/day).  Yup, he was a money digger alright.  And?
• If he went searching for gold in them thar hills, how is that an illegitimate business venture?  Successful or not, it was a business venture.  Are they anti-capitalism?
• What exactly is the problem with using a seer stone or the Nephite Interpreters?  Somehow the Urim and Thummim is perfectly acceptable, but the seer stone is voo-doo?

I did wonder about he videos saying that the stone in the hat story was completely false.  Strange since we have official Church records which cite Martin Harris and David Whitmer both talking about the seer stone.

They debunk David Whitmer because, apparently, he only made those statements many decades after Joseph's death.  And they point out that Whitmer never actually witnessed the translation process.  So, if he knew anything, it was second-hand.

Martin could have some credit because he was part of the translation of the 116 pages.  They never really went into debunking him.

They made a mistake about Emma.  They said that she never witnessed the translation.  False.  She did translate the first few pages of Mosiah.  But they simply didn't have enough time between the two of them.  That's why they needed a third party to act as scribe (enter Oliver).

But they make one point that all of her statements about the seer stone were made many years after his death.  She never made any contemporary references to the seer stone.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, I finished the videos an now I'm down the rabbit hole! Haha. If it weren't for @Just_A_Guy's post I would probably be pretty firmly behind The Joseph Smith Foundation and what they seem to represent. I've only found one thing that I'm like, "weird" about, and that is the implication I read somewhere that they (The Stoddards) didn't celebrate Christmas or Halloween. Weird.

Otherwise, everything seems like just in line with my thinking... but..... the difference is -- I'm not publishing. So when I believe in the "Old History" and the church has started to embrace the "New History" (For those who care...the Old History rejected folk-magic and treasure seeking as part of the narrative and the New History accepts it and attempts to interweave it) I'm not standing publicly against a position being expressed as "official" by the church. But, yeah... I've never bought into or really accepted the stone in the hat narrative. But because I don't have a "foundation" that's committed to express such ideas, when the church changes its position on such a matter I can just shrug and say, "Meh. We'll find out someday." For the most part. Related to this, I was reading James Stoddard's obituary (he died in 2021 at the age of 50, a year younger than I am now (of lung cancer, for anyone interested)), and was struck by the similarities to myself in so many things. Music composer, software engineer, heavily into church doctrine, history, family man, etc..

But then Just_A_Guy suggests there's potential malice at play here and I'm all like....WHAAAAT?!?! I mean comparisons to Denver Snuffer? The first time I ever saw anything by or about Snuffer there were red-flags all over the place. That isn't the case here. So I'm at a bit of a loss.

Anyhow, interesting.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

• If he was hired by someone else as manual labor in a pit or mine, he got paid for it (like $1/day).  Yup, he was a money digger alright.  And?
• If he went searching for gold in them thar hills, how is that an illegitimate business venture?  Successful or not, it was a business venture.  Are they anti-capitalism?
• What exactly is the problem with using a seer stone or the Nephite Interpreters?  Somehow the Urim and Thummim is perfectly acceptable, but the seer stone is voo-doo?

As the video suggested, the problem is the implied connection to the occult, which was the entire point of the claims in the first place. People who hated Joseph wanted to connect him to the occult to discredit him as a man of God. And that's exactly why the ideas of him using the stone to seek treasure and then using it to do God's work doesn't click with me. The suggestion that occult magic was pre-truth training to the actual work of God has never set well with me. I accept that this "new history" narrative could explain itself in that way, and, fine. But it's an unnecessary pill to have to try and swallow, imo.

There are, basically, two approaches to ideas such as, "Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to do magic!"

1. Apologetic explanation of the ubiquity of folk-magic followed by some bending over backwards to justify its usage hand-in-hand with the gospel.

2. I don't believe that.

My feelings incline fairly strongly towards #2.

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I've only found one thing that I'm like, "weird" about, and that is the implication I read somewhere that they (The Stoddards) didn't celebrate Christmas or Halloween. Weird.

Sorry for the self-quote, but I wanted to reference what I said here for context:

I found a blog post by James Stoddard on why he doesn't celebrate Halloween. And, as is always the case when people I've known have explained it to me, I find the points filled with non-sequitur reasoning. And...as is typically the case... it's a bit of a red flag. Not a major one. I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't celebrate Halloween must be looking beyond the mark somehow. I'm not saying they must be. But.......

I should probably start a new thread on the matter. But it's not really worth arguing about if anyone disagrees with me. So I'll leave off on the commentary here. But if anyone wants to go at me on the merits or evils of Halloween, feel free to start said new thread and we'll get into it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I want to note here that I am not raising concerns over the JSF in an attempt to undermine their historical arguments.  The evidence is what it is.  I tend to be an institutionalist in many respects, and I am probably prejudiced somewhat in favor of Bushman et al; but I also (hope I) am open to the possibility that they may be getting the history completely wrong.  

For purposes of this thread, my concern is simply that people may begin interpreting evidence in a certain way because the JSF encourages them to do so.  I am unable to publicly discuss the source of my information or to document my concerns about them; but to the extent that I can raise alarm about them within the constraints that prevent me from going into detail about it—I feel I need to at least try.  But again, I’m just a random guy in the internet; and those who don’t know me are probably right to take my statements with a *huge* grain of salt.

I will just say this:  live righteously, keep the Spirit, and hold to the living prophet and apostles—and don’t let anyone come between you and them; and don’t be too surprised if you see people connected with the JSF start trying to drive wedges between you and the modern church leadership at some point in the future.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m just a random guy in the internet; and those who don’t know me are probably right to take my statements with a *huge* grain of salt.

I know we've only met a few times...but enough to say that I don't think of you as just some random guy on the internet. But I think I know you well enough to not take your statement with huge grain of salt.  Which is why I'm itching now for a bunch of details that you can't share, apparently... because I do tend to trust you.

That being said, and this was my point before, I have always been skeptical of the Joseph and folk-magic narrative. I don't need the Stoddards and their foundation, which I only discovered today, for that.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which is why I'm itching now for a bunch of details that you can't share, apparently... because I do tend to trust you.

Remember, he's a lawyer.  Understood?

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 and don’t be too surprised if you see people connected with the JSF start trying to drive wedges between you and the modern church leadership at some point in the future.

If I can be sufficiently clear and cryptic at the same time, we have been warned about having "study groups" outside of an official church setting.  Seeing their round table, it sure seemed like it.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Remember, he's a lawyer.  Understood?

Of course I understood that.

That being said...without details I must reserve judgment.

[laronius]

I've had very little exposure to the JSF but what little there has been was favorable. BUT I also wondered at the time about the threat gospel hobbies present to any such group or individual that invests so much of itself in a single cause. Fanaticism is never a good thing. I hope they don't get lost in their own pursuit of truth.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 hours ago, laronius said:

I've had very little exposure to the JSF but what little there has been was favorable. BUT I also wondered at the time about the threat gospel hobbies present to any such group or individual that invests so much of itself in a single cause. Fanaticism is never a good thing. I hope they don't get lost in their own pursuit of truth.

I used to visit an organization's page, that I won't mention here, whose hobby horse was standing against homosexual stuff. When the church started softening their approach this group became very critical of the church and church leaders. I stopped visiting them entirely.

Edited February 21, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Grunt]

22 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Okay, I finished the videos an now I'm down the rabbit hole! Haha. If it weren't for @Just_A_Guy's post I would probably be pretty firmly behind The Joseph Smith Foundation and what they seem to represent. I've only found one thing that I'm like, "weird" about, and that is the implication I read somewhere that they (The Stoddards) didn't celebrate Christmas or Halloween. Weird.

 

 

I've had discussions with the Stoddards.  While I don't necessarily take things to the level they do in some areas, their reasoning for not celebrating some holidays seemed pretty sound to me.  Other members of JSF talk about it more than Hannah and Leah seem to, so that's where most of my understanding comes from.

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I've had discussions with the Stoddards.  While I don't necessarily take things to the level they do in some areas, their reasoning for not celebrating some holidays seemed pretty sound to me.  Other members of JSF talk about it more than Hannah and Leah seem to, so that's where most of my understanding comes from.

It is something that I have found some people believe with excessive conviction.

Here are the 5 reasons they give on their site re: Halloween, to which I'll respond to with my opinions:

Reason #1: The power of Satan is real.  Never tell your kids witches aren’t real.

If you're celebrating Satan and real witches then I agree. But that's not what we do in my family. We don't conflate the entirely fictional witches and wizards of the entirely fictional Harry Potter universe with real witches either. And such a conflation has always struck me as a bit silly.

That being said, even if one were to fully embrace the "never dress up as a witch" idea, then don't dress up as a witch. Problem solved.

That being said, some of the most righteous, wholesome, good families I know have had their kids show up trick or treating as witches. I just find the idea that if you engage in such you're inviting Satan into your life extremely holier-than-thou from that perspective. It's just not true. Painting your face green and putting on a pointy hat has NOTHING to do with Satan or Satanism or witchcraft. It's entirely silly fiction. And, if I do say so myself, a lot of fun.

Reason #2: Satan causes extreme suffering.

Yep. But, once again, the correlation of Halloween and Satan is only true if one is putting Satan into the mix. Don't put Satan into the mix in your celebration of Halloween.

Reason #3: Halloween and other elements of Satanism mock God & His Priesthood

Absolute rubbish on the Halloween point. Obviously Satanism mocks God. But once again, Halloween does not equal Satanism unless you make it so. We don't.

Reason #4: Engaging in Satanic rituals, witchcraft and so forth is condemned in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants & Pearl of Great Price.

Same point. It's the typical logic anti-Halloweeners use. They present Halloween as if it's equivalent to a Satanic ritual. Period. No discussion. It just is. But that point is simply not true.

Reason #5: I know the history of Halloween

Irrelevant. Yes, it comes from a pagan ritual. So what? It is not a religious thing in my family. It's a fun family tradition involving candy, pumpkins, dress-up, neighborly visits, and love. The ghosts and ghouls are fictional fun and have nothing to do with real ghosts and ghouls. No real witch every had green skin. And zombies don't exist.

In short...I grew up on Halloween and -- shockingly -- I'm not a devil worshipper, Satan lover, corrupted Pagan, or anything of the sort. Neither were my parents. In point of fact, I'm a faithful Latter-day Saint, temple recommend holding priesthood holder -- surprise surprise. I know. Shocking, right? Since, apparently, I invite Satan into my life yearly in October.

When some holier-than-thou uppity gospel snob starts preaching to me that I'm NOT faithful, have invited Satan into my life, and that they have some higher way or path because they don't dress up and go trick-or-treating it is utterly laughable to me.

Finally, if the prophets and apostles felt dressing up and trick-or-treating was a problem they would preach against it. They'd ban trunk-or-treating on church property. They don't do this because they're not nutty over-zealous wackos*. If they change their minds, I will too.

*I realize that this is a subjective thing. According to some views, they are very much nutty over-zealous wackos. So, like I said...my opinion.

Everyone has to come to their own conclusions about these things, of course. But I just find the "no Halloween" logic so bizarre. And if they don't celebrate Christmas it's even more bizarre. Because I can see, obviously, how certain parts of the world's Halloween traditions should be avoided. I mean one could apply the same to Christmas. The commercialism and greed can be problematic. That should be avoided.

And another point. Neither Halloween, nor Christmas, nor Easter itself, are actually religious holidays for Latter-day Saints. The only holiday we have is Sunday each week. Otherwise, Christ is meant to be a at the core of all we do. If Christ is the core of one's Halloween traditions then it is a good thing. When my family dresses up and we take our kids trick-or-treating Christ is the center of it. First and foremost in all we do is to do as He did. Our priority is our neighbors, sharing, and giving them an opportunity to share. It's loving and laughing. It's politeness, kindness, service, and joy. It's family bonds. Halloween gives opportunity for this, even with one's face painted green while wearing a pointy hat and carrying a broom. Why on earth anyone would take such a silly, meaningless thing and apply this idea that selfless, serving, loving, Christlike, Sister So-n-so is "bringing Satan into her life!!!" is beyond me. It's ludicrous.

Edited February 21, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[mirkwood]

Would it surprise anyone that I celebrate Halloween?  I have a TR too and was in a session last Friday.

[scottyg]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you're celebrating Satan and real witches then I agree. But that's not what we do in my family. We don't conflate the entirely fictional witches and wizards of the entirely fictional Harry Potter universe with real witches either. And such a conflation has always struck me as a bit silly.

A family in our previous ward from around 8-9 years ago was like that about Harry Potter. They were very verbally outspoken about how evil it was, and how it would lead children down a path that would eventually take them away from the church. These people were always the ones who brought up deep doctrine and gave philosophical answers to basic questions in church because their "grandfather's brother's neighbor was a second cousin to Hugh Nibley's sister in-law" (so of course they would know more about the church than all of us peasants do).

Their kids (ages 4-10) never seemed happy...because their parents never seemed to let them play or have fun with other kids. It was pretty sad.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, scottyg said:

A family in our previous ward from around 8-9 years ago was like that about Harry Potter. They were very verbally outspoken about how evil it was, and how it would lead children down a path that would eventually take them away from the church. These people were always the ones who brought up deep doctrine and gave philosophical answers to basic questions in church because their "grandfather's brother's neighbor was a second cousin to Hugh Nibley's sister in-law" (so of course they would know more about the church than all of us peasants do).

Their kids (ages 4-10) never seemed happy...because their parents never seemed to let them play or have fun with other kids. It was pretty sad.

Yeah. Everyone has to decide for themselves. And I'm sure there are those who feel strongly against Halloween or Harry Potter who will be in good shape come judgement day. But it sure feels looking beyond the mark to me.

But...in my family, we made the decision to keep our church clothes on all day on Sunday. We do it to help remind us that it's Sunday. But I'm sure there are others who consider that sort of approach extreme, looking beyond the mark, or otherwise weird. But one big difference...I don't suggest or even imply in ANY way that those who don't keep their church clothes on all day Sunday are inviting Satan into their lives.

[Grunt]

50 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Would it surprise anyone that I celebrate Halloween?  I have a TR too and was in a session last Friday.

Sure.  I celebrate Halloween also.  I don't have an issue with those who are stricter in their beliefs than I am.