Rough Stone Rolling

[Guest]

From Star Trek II:

    Saavik  meets Kirk for the first time.  She remarks to Spock that he's so "human".

    Spock responds: Nobody's perfect.

ID4 (the original)

   The bunker is under attack and the computer guy's father is gathering people together for a (Jewish) prayer.

   The (now fired) chief of staff kneels with them and declares "But I'm not Jewish."

   Response: Nobody's perfect.          

[UtahTexan]

I read it as a non-Mormon (LDS now).  I felt it was honest enough that a member would say, "See?  Joseph was a prophet!" and a non-member would say, "See?  He was not a prophet!"

[An Investigator]

I'm reading it now.. I am gripped,  it's such a good book! And the way he writes I feel like i am actually there.. Anyway back to it ?

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, An Investigator said:

I'm reading it now.. I am gripped,  it's such a good book! And the way he writes I feel like i am actually there.. Anyway back to it ?

Good luck AI! I'm sure you will share any fun findings along the way!

[LeSellers]

There are two problems people have with accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet:

1) He has a last name.

2) His life post-dated the printing press.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

On 7/29/2016 at 7:55 PM, tesuji said:

From what you have said, I think you will find the book valuable.

Many new Mormons do not have a background in religion like you do. So recommending RSR to them is like telling a French 101 student to read Moliere or Proust. Also, faith can easily be snuffed out when it's new. Spiritual knowledge is not like academic knowledge.

I certainly didn't mean to treat you like a child. Mormons should definitely ask questions. Just try to be ready to hear the answers. Some things in church history and doctrine are hard to understand. I'm not saying don't ask questions. I'm just saying people shouldn't try to run before they can walk. We have given you enough info here for you to choose, I think.

If you have a little seedling barely sprouting, you would destroy it by dumping too much water and fertilizer on it, until it had grown and had big enough roots. Or, for another analogy, if you wanted someone to enjoy learning calculus and appreciate what a great tool it is, you would tell them to spend a few years on algebra first.

I see where you're going, but for what it's worth . . . 

I've always been a history nut, and my parents--schoolteachers--took me and my siblings to our local library at least twice a month.  I remember one day as an eleven-year-old, coming across Donna Hill's biography of Joseph Smith (Joseph Smith:  The First Mormon), and I (being in California) thought "cool!  A book about my obscure, minority religion!".  I brought it to my mom, who basically said "well, just remember that just because something's in a book doesn't necessarily mean it's true", and she let me check it out.  I devoured it.

Now, part of me was probably lucky in that Donna Hill wasn't exactly a raging anti-Mormon; and her book is far from a hit piece.  But it did bring up polygamy, and money-digging, and seer stones, and (if I remember correctly) Joseph's own periodic violation of the Word of Wisdom.  But, you know what?  As a kid, those things didn't really bug me that much.  And for the last twenty-five years, no character assassination on Joseph Smith has ever really carried much weight with me; because it wasn't telling me anything I hadn't already heard to some degree.

Of course every individual is different, and I wouldn't recommend--say--Jon Krakauer, or the Tanners, or Fawn Brodie under any circumstances.  But if a new investigator, or a child of reasonable maturity, is thinking of reading Rough Stone Rolling; then in general my response would be "go for it--and the sooner, the better."

Edited August 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"well, just remember that just because something's in a book doesn't necessarily mean it's true", and she let me check it out. 

 

Your mom was right. One of the signs of being a grown up is understanding that not everything you read/hear is true.

That said, when a group of people agree on a historical/scientific/theological fact, it probably IS true. The most traveled roads in Europe are most traveled for a reason. You probably should believe them even if it goes against your own views. True, you will always find people who say stupid things like the holocaust didn't exist (a truly horrific and vile group of evil people think that. They aren't playing with a full deck.) but they are on the fringe and aren't taken seriously by anyone but themselves.
 

Edited August 7, 2016 by MormonGator

[UtahTexan]

ok.....now just started reading it again.  I want to read it as a Member

[An Investigator]

OK! Question who is Fawn Brodie?  What happened to the law of  concentration? 

Edited August 7, 2016 by An Investigator

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

OK! Question who is Fawn Brodie? 

The author of a controversial book on Joseph Smith and she was directly related to the prophet David McKay 

[LeSellers]

31 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

OK! Question who is Fawn Brodie?  What happened to the law of  concentration? 

A self-styled historian who made/makes it her calling to debunk famous men of the past. She took on Thomas Jefferson using the same mind-reading techniques applied in No Man, tried to explain TJ's actions via some sort of amateur psychology. Other historians took her to task for this breach of the norms, but, oddly, no one seemed to care when she used them to attack Joseph.

Lehi

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, An Investigator said:

 What happened to the law of  concentration? 

I think you mean consecration...

We failed to live it... And I think that failure played apart in the persecutions and trials of the Saints that followed.  Unwilling to live God's law we forfeited his blessings and protections

[An Investigator]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I think you mean consecration...

We failed to live it... And I think that failure played apart in the persecutions and trials of the Saints that followed.  Unwilling to live God's law we forfeited his blessings and protections

Hahaha yes I do... The Book mentioned it and never talked about it again unless it does further on.   

 

43 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

A self-styled historian who made/makes it her calling to debunk famous men of the past. She took on Thomas Jefferson using the same mind-reading techniques applied in No Man, tried to explain TJ's actions via some sort of amateur psychology. Other historians took her to task for this breach of the norms, but, oddly, no one seemed to care when she used them to attack Joseph.

Lehi

Wow, definitely one to avoid then 

 

Thanks!

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

 

Wow, definitely one to avoid then

I can see why LDS avoid the book, but remember that Bushman read the book several times, so did many members such as myself. Like Bushman and using his words we view it more as a challenge to our intellect than our testimony. 

[Maureen]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I can see why LDS avoid the book, but remember that Bushman read the book several times, so did many members such as myself. Like Bushman and using his words we view it more as a challenge to our intellect than our testimony. 

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith"^[10] and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."^[11] Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."^[12]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man_Knows_My_History}

^M.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith"^[10] and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."^[11] Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."^[12]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man_Knows_My_History}

^M.

He's right. Many LDS can't understand how the non LDS world sees the Prophet. The irony is that Brodies books presents Smith Jr in a much, much better light than all others before. 

Bushman is also being humble. His book knocked off Brodies as "the book" on Smith.  

Edited August 7, 2016 by MormonGator

[An Investigator]

57 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I can see why LDS avoid the book, but remember that Bushman read the book several times, so did many members such as myself. Like Bushman and using his words we view it more as a challenge to our intellect than our testimony. 

Thats great but as we have discussed before I don't think I have your objectivity.  Ive only been baptised four months.. I'm having a hard enough time grasping the concept of having Visiting / home teaching (i find it abit bizzare and intrusive)  at the minute,  without reading things which could possibly weaken my testimony.    Maybe when Ive been a member longer

Edited August 7, 2016 by An Investigator

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

Thats great but as we have discussed before I don't think I have your objectivity.  Ive only been baptised four months.. I'm having a hard enough time grasping the concept of having Visiting / home teaching (i find it abit bizzare and intrusive)  at the minute,  without reading things which could possibly weaken my testimony.    Maybe when Ive been a member longer

That's a great attitude to have, and thank you for the compliment. I try to keep objectivity in everything I can. 

[zil]

2 hours ago, An Investigator said:

What happened to the law of  concentration? 

A squirrel ran by carrying something shiny, and no one really remembers anything that happened before or since.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

A squirrel ran by carrying something shiny, and no one really remembers anything that happened before or since.

+10 for irony and wit. You've moved up in rank. 

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I can see why LDS avoid the book, but remember that Bushman read the book several times, so did many members such as myself. Like Bushman and using his words we view it more as a challenge to our intellect than our testimony. 

I've read much of it. It gets disgusting after while, reading page after page of lies and distortions and fabrications and missing pieces.

I couldn't get through more than a few pages at a time. Still, it is good to know what black falsehoods are out there if only to inoculate my grandchildren against this insidious disease.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

dup

Lehi

Edited August 8, 2016 by LeSellers

[An Investigator]

12 hours ago, zil said:

A squirrel ran by carrying something shiny, and no one really remembers anything that happened before or since.

In fairness I am normally replying on my phone while.... Sorry what were we talking about again ? 

[tesuji]

21 hours ago, An Investigator said:

I'm having a hard enough time grasping the concept of having Visiting / home teaching (i find it abit bizzare and intrusive)  at the minute,  without reading things which could possibly weaken my testimony.    Maybe when Ive been a member longer

I really agree with this approach. I myself have waited to read stuff about church history until I felt like I was ready to process it.

The important thing is not to freak out when you read something negative about the church. Remember the witness you have received by the Holy Spirit that this is God's church. Then suspend judgement until you've learned enough about the facts, and also read the explanation from the church and faithful Mormons.

I say read and learn all you can. But some things are more important than others to understand first. Also, some things you can study are just not true.
 

Fawn Brodie's bio of Joseph Smith

The world loves this book because it shows them the prophet they want - a false prophet who can be dismissed.

I read part of Brodie's book and was deeply offended at the unfounded attacks on Joseph. I found it to be a caricature and distortion of who I believe Joseph was. The Joseph in Brodie's book bears little resemblance to the Joseph I see in his own writings, including the Doctrine and Covenants.

If Joseph was the charlatan Brodie says he was, the good early Mormon converts would not have followed him and believed he was a prophet. The church would not have kept growing in the 20 odd years during the time when Joseph was called to lead the church. The knew him personally and lived with him for years, unlike Brodie.

Brodie is a very good writer. Her language is beautiful and reads like literature. But she was also an apostate, and I don't trust her to explain to me about the first modern prophet of God. She also does not tell you where she got a lot of what's in the book, or how she came up with knowing what was going on in Joseph's head.

Read the book if you want, but if you're like me you will be angry at the ungrateful, unfair smear job of the person who the scriptures say has done more for our salvation than anyone but Christ himself. Joseph was an imperfect man, but he was also an amazing person and a great prophet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_M._Brodie
 

Law of consecration

Here's a great explanation:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-14-the-law-of-consecration?lang=eng

The early saints under Joseph Smith tried to live this as an organized group. Enough of them couldn't live up to it, so it was discontinued as an official church policy. However, we expect that in the future, maybe not until Christ returns, we will give it another go and not fail this time.

But, in a very real sense, we members should still be living it individually - to consecrate our energy, time, money, etc. to building up God's kingdom. This includes fulfilling our roles to provide for our families, raise and nurture our children, do missionary work, serve in the community, etc. Basically, to spend our time doing what God wants us to do.

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by tesuji

[Just_A_Guy]

20 hours ago, LeSellers said:

A self-styled historian who made/makes it her calling to debunk famous men of the past. She took on Thomas Jefferson using the same mind-reading techniques applied in No Man, tried to explain TJ's actions via some sort of amateur psychology. Other historians took her to task for this breach of the norms, but, oddly, no one seemed to care when she used them to attack Joseph.

Lehi

As I recall, most of the ruckus over Brodie's work with Thomas Jefferson involved her giving credence to the idea that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children at a time when most historians were pooh-poohing the idea.