Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

After being exposed to Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling recently, I find it not just a change from the old narrative, but to be an inaccurate picture of church history - one that attempts to combine the world's view (accusations, slander, attacks, etc) of Joseph Smith with the Lord's view (a pure, honest, prophet of God). The picture he paints of the Prophet Joseph and the Smith family doesn't match up with what scriptures and words of prophets tell us about them, not just the 'narrative' we've been taught. Bushman's view doesn't just reconstruct the narrative, it attempts to reconstruct how we see the Prophet Joseph - a reconstruction that removes the Lord's opinion and leaves only the secular opinion. ........................ 

................................................................

I took a look at some of the claims made at ldsanswers.org (haven't looked at it before) and found them seriously flawed by lack of historical knowledge, quotations made out of context, and misinterpretations of what Bushman and others have said -- as though quoting random others had some sort of validity.  The worst mistake made by the Stoddards, however, was their failure to have become familiar with the historically documented facts.  That leaves them with a general lack of knowledge of LDS history and  theology which is the death knell to a faithful and ready defense of our religion.  Such rigidity and shallowness lead more quickly to apostasy than anything else.  We are far more likely to find intelligent and effective answers at www.FairMormon.org .

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/27/2017 at 4:08 PM, strappinglad said:

There was a character in one of the TV series that I binge watched a couple of years ago that could see the future, or better said , an infinity of futures depending on choices made by individuals along the way. As I now walk in the tall weeds of speculation, perhaps that is how God works. He makes a commandment and people make choices and adjustments are made etc. Had Joseph become POTUS , would there have been a civil war? Had there been no civil war , how would the Church been different regarding blacks? We are told about the vision given when polygamy was ended, the vision of how, in essence, the Church would be destroyed had it continued with polygamy. Was it inevitable that Martin's wife would ' lose ' the manuscript? Would then the contingency plan put in place by Nephi been needed? Had the Saints been more saintly and the Missourians been more tolerant, would there have been a need to move West ?

Yeh, and what if Adam & Eve had meekly obeyed the commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and simultaneously disobeyed the order to multiply and replenish?  Or the order to stay together?  An infinity of options and possible outcomes . . . .

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's a clever quip (one I've heard before), but it sustains the false dichotomy I have identified here in recent days that one must either regard the prophets and apostles as infallible or untrustworthy.

There's a wide territory between believing they never err and that they are as apt as anybody else to err.

Acknowledging that other than Jesus Christ, no perfect individual has ever walked the earth, I nonetheless trust the prophets and apostles to do and say what is right -- especially when acting as a body. Here are some reasons why I do:

-- They are endowed with the gifts of the Spirit to which their sacred calling entitles them.

-- They are accustomed through many years of experience and divine tutoring to behave in a manner that makes them worthy of those gifts of the Spirit.

-- They have knowledge and information to which the average person is not privy.

-- The council system in Church administration acts as a check on individual error.

 

 

Incidentally he used that quote out of context- I agree with you.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

The is a difference between personal fallibility and doctrinal fallibility. After all...

How fast would the Lord remove a prophet who attempts to lead the church astray?

Seriously?  

If I were the Lord I would think a heart attack would be a pretty easy thing.  Blood clots are easy and those dang tiny platelets just seem to want to stick together anyway.  One little chemical reaction and it's ll over.

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

After being exposed to Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling recently, I find it not just a change from the old narrative, but to be an inaccurate picture of church history - one that attempts to combine the world's view (accusations, slander, attacks, etc) of Joseph Smith with the Lord's view (a pure, honest, prophet of God). The picture he paints of the Prophet Joseph and the Smith family doesn't match up with what scriptures and words of prophets tell us about them, not just the 'narrative' we've been taught. Bushman's view doesn't just reconstruct the narrative, it attempts to reconstruct how we see the Prophet Joseph - a reconstruction that removes the Lord's opinion and leaves only the secular opinion. We know from D&C that Joseph's name will be "had for good and evil", that "all hell shall rage against him", and that "fools shall have him in derision". We also know that the "wise... will seek blessings and counsel constantly from under his hand"(D&C 122:1-3). Which ones are we? IDK about you, but when the Lord and the world are at odds, I'll take the Lord's side. I noticed several who made comments on the LDS Answers and Joseph Smith Foundation group in a previous discussion of RSR. Looking at their website, I have been quite impressed with the scriptural and evidence based viewpoint they have taken while responding to some of Bushman's claims, specifically these three (which I highly recommend checking out):

http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-sr-a-weak-and-failed-father-a-rough-stone-rolling-response/

 

When you say that you were "exposed" to RSR, do you mean that you read the book from cover to cover?  Or were you just exposed to selected quotes?

I read RSR and didn't get the same impression that you did. 

I haven't read the ldsanswers links you provided here but I have read a few of their previous articles and was not impressed.  I believe that Bushman has done far greater research on Joseph Smith than the authors behind ldsanswers.org. 

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I took a look at some of the claims made at ldsanswers.org (haven't looked at it before) and found them seriously flawed by lack of historical knowledge, quotations made out of context, and misinterpretations of what Bushman and others have said -- as though quoting random others had some sort of validity.  The worst mistake made by the Stoddards, however, was their failure to have become familiar with the historically documented facts.  That leaves them with a general lack of knowledge of LDS history and  theology which is the death knell to a faithful and ready defense of our religion.  Such rigidity and shallowness lead more quickly to apostasy than anything else.  We are far more likely to find intelligent and effective answers at www.FairMormon.org .

Do you have some good examples for me of how their historical knowledge was flawed or how the excerpts mean something different when together with the rest of a quote? I saw that in the comments on the articles multiple people were asking for examples or proof backing Bushman but those defending Bushman gave few if any.

I fear that in today's world we are so learned we think we are wise and fail to give full credence to the counsels of God - we set them aside, supposing we know of ourselves. We give more heed to the words of the great and spacious building than to the prophets of God. Or perhaps, we attempt to soften the Lord's statements so that they can coexist with our worldly learning, failing to realize that truth and error are eternally opposites. The Lord knows all truth and anything in disagreement with the Lord's truth is wrong. I would disagree that "such rigidity and shallowness lead more quickly to apostasy than anything else." I think that putting the Lord's word first instead guarantees our spiritual safety - for our knowledge is based on the truth coming straight from the Lord (the source of all truth) rather than on the learning and philosophies of men.

After visiting the CES letter website, I was surprised to see how much he quotes Richard Bushman in his 'Debunking Fair' section. I've already counted at least 15 times that the author of CES letter uses Bushman's opinion to attack the stance of FairMormon. Interesting. You would think Bushman's quotes should be supporting Fair, not being used against it.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Do you have some good examples for me of how their historical knowledge was flawed or how the excerpts mean something different when together with the rest of a quote? I saw that in the comments on the articles multiple people were asking for examples or proof backing Bushman but those defending Bushman gave few if any.

I fear that in today's world we are so learned we think we are wise and fail to give full credence to the counsels of God - we set them aside, supposing we know of ourselves. We give more heed to the words of the great and spacious building than to the prophets of God. Or perhaps, we attempt to soften the Lord's statements so that they can coexist with our worldly learning, failing to realize that truth and error are eternally opposites. The Lord knows all truth and anything in disagreement with the Lord's truth is wrong. I would disagree that "such rigidity and shallowness lead more quickly to apostasy than anything else." I think that putting the Lord's word first instead guarantees our spiritual safety - for our knowledge is based on the truth coming straight from the Lord (the source of all truth) rather than on the learning and philosophies of men.

After visiting the CES letter website, I was surprised to see how much he quotes Richard Bushman in his 'Debunking Fair' section. I've already counted at least 15 times that the author of CES letter uses Bushman's opinion to attack the stance of FairMormon. Interesting. You would think Bushman's quotes should be supporting Fair, not being used against it.

So you've only read excerpts of RSR?  Selected by those who disagree with him?

I suggest you take the time to read the book before drawing the conclusions you seem to have jumped to. 

Do you know much about Richard Bushman?

RSR is a rather well respected book within the Mormon community and, I'm told, required reading now by a number of BYU religion professors.  It isn't Bushman who needs defending, it is the authors of ldsanswers.org. 

[Calm]

Using Bushman incorrectly does not discredit Bushman, it discredits Runnells.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Priesthood_Restoration_Concerns_%26_Questions#Response_to_claim:_.22.27The_late_appearance_of_these_accounts_raises_the_possibility_of_later_fabrication..27_.E2.80.93_LDS_Historian_Richard_Bushman.22

 

[Calm]

Runnells also uses the Book of Mormon in his attempts to discredit Joseph Smith.  Does that mean that the Book of Mormon is problematic in your view?

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Using Bushman incorrectly does not discredit Bushman, it discredits Runnells.

Exactly.

Bradley Young on ldsanswers.org (one of the links provided by Faith, Family, Freedom) concludes the following regarding what Bushman has written:

These statements strike at the core of Joseph’s prophetic calling and are, consequently, also an attack on the Book of Mormon, priesthood power and keys, and the very message of the Restoration.

Young seems to have completely missed Bushman's message in RSR.

[strappinglad]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, and what if Adam & Eve had meekly obeyed the commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and simultaneously disobeyed the order to multiply and replenish?  Or the order to stay together?  An infinity of options and possible outcomes . . . .

We do have a vague hint as to a plan B , as I'm sure you are aware.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Do you have some good examples for me of how their historical knowledge was flawed or how the excerpts mean something different when together with the rest of a quote? I saw that in the comments on the articles multiple people were asking for examples or proof backing Bushman but those defending Bushman gave few if any.

I fear that in today's world we are so learned we think we are wise and fail to give full credence to the counsels of God - we set them aside, supposing we know of ourselves. We give more heed to the words of the great and spacious building than to the prophets of God. Or perhaps, we attempt to soften the Lord's statements so that they can coexist with our worldly learning, failing to realize that truth and error are eternally opposites. The Lord knows all truth and anything in disagreement with the Lord's truth is wrong. I would disagree that "such rigidity and shallowness lead more quickly to apostasy than anything else." I think that putting the Lord's word first instead guarantees our spiritual safety - for our knowledge is based on the truth coming straight from the Lord (the source of all truth) rather than on the learning and philosophies of men.

After visiting the CES letter website, I was surprised to see how much he quotes Richard Bushman in his 'Debunking Fair' section. I've already counted at least 15 times that the author of CES letter uses Bushman's opinion to attack the stance of FairMormon. Interesting. You would think Bushman's quotes should be supporting Fair, not being used against it.

I have to agree with rockpond that the shoe is on the other foot.  It doesn't surprise me at all that the yokel who wrote the CES Letter quotes Bushman.   He fits the profile of someone who has never learned anything about LDS history, and so was shocked by the facts.   In fact his anti-Mormon "letter" is only meaningful to those who do not know the historical facts and who have no training in historiography.  I also quote Bushman, but in defense of the LDS faith.  I have read every page and every footnote of Rough Stone Rolling, and I came to the book knowing Richard Bushman himself and having spent over a half-century studying LDS history.  Heck, his wife's father even gave me my patriarchal blessing.  RSR is only one among many books, documents, and articles which one must read in order to gain a reasonable appreciation of real LDS history.  Prof Bushman is not perfect, but he is a well-respected historian and fully trusted by the Brethren.  He has opinions on various aspects of American history, just like any other professional.  I have even argued with him on issues in which his expertise is limited.

D&C 88:118, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

You appear to be unaware that very well-educated LDS members are less likely to apostatize than less well educated members -- unlike other religions:  

Joseph Walker, “LDS religious commitment high, Pew survey finds,” Deseret News, Jan 13, 2012, online at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html?pg=all , 

Katherine Orgill, “Mormons more faithful with more education,” BYU Daily Universe, May 5, 2015, online at http://universe.byu.edu/2015/05/05/final-story-21/ . 

https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/4bnont/as_mormons_become_more_educated_they_become_more/ .

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you've only read excerpts of RSR?  Selected by those who disagree with him?

I have not read the whole book and I do not disagree with the book as a whole - in order to be as well known as it is I'm sure it is in general a normal biography. I disagree with the 'excerpts' as you would call them - the sections Bushman inserts that state very large assumptions about Joseph's character - assumptions not supported by facts. Like saying Joseph Smith was involved in occultist magic that stuck with him to the end or that Joseph Smith Sr. compensated for his failures by turning to drink. Or that Joseph Jr.'s largest motivation in receiving the revelation was to redeem his failed father. These and others cannot be logically defended by facts and they undermine the cleanliness of those called to carry out the restoration. While the entirety of the book may not be this way, the 'excerpts' or little pieces Bushman has chosen to throw in paint an incomplete and discordant picture of the Prophet Joseph - one that leaves me surprised that an LDS historian would be promoting it. I'm not accusing Bushman of anything - I can't know his motivations for inserting those 'excerpts'. However, when I find that a biography contains such large assumptions, I know I can easily find a more truthful source to learn about the Prophet Joseph.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You appear to be unaware that very well-educated LDS members are less likely to apostatize than less well educated members -- unlike other religions

Oh I definitely agree that the facts are important - and that they should be known. That's why I've taken the time to learn them. I merely caution against putting the facts over the faith - believing 'facts' about the Prophet Joseph that the Lord's revelations contradict. In my 'evidence hierarchy', scriptures and words of prophets get #1 over any perceived factual evidence. If facts and prophets don't match up, I take the prophets and the facts always straighten themselves out. Facts can be skewed, warped, twisted, or simply absent at the time. Truth will always be truth.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

 It isn't Bushman who needs defending, it is the authors of ldsanswers.org. 

I'm not looking at this as an issue of LDS Answers vs. Bushman. I'm looking at this as the Lord's scripture vs. Bushman (the view LDS Answers attempts to take as well), so Bushman must be defended since he is in opposition to my #1 source. Example of his opposition? How's this for a contrast. In '96 Elder Oaks said:

Quote

John Taylor, also with him when he was murdered, said: “I testify before God, angels, and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man … —that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God” (The Gospel Kingdom, [1987], 355; see also D&C 135:3). Brigham Young declared: “I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew [Joseph Smith] any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth” (in Journal of Discourses, 9:332).

In contrast, Bushman says:

Quote

 

When he married Emma Hale in 1827, Joseph. . . may still have been involved in magic, but he was sincere when he told Emma’s father that his treasure-seeking days were over. Magic had served its purpose in his life. In a sense, it was a preparatory gospel.

Magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture. . . . Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end.

 

According to my hierarchy (IDK about yours), Elder Oaks, John Taylor, and Brigham Young get the upper hand over Bushman. Both cannot be true. Either his "private and public character was impeachable" or "magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture." I'll take the prophet's stance and let the facts fix themselves.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Using Bushman incorrectly does not discredit Bushman, it discredits Runnells.

Problem was, Bushman wasn't being used incorrectly in most cases and not a whole lot of skewing had to be done by Runnels. Antis will target the weak link - the spot they can get in or use to discredit. Apparently that's Bushman right now.

I've never seen anyone (Runnels included) successfully use the Book of Mormon (the most correct book on earth) successfully against itself.

Again, my disagreement with Bushman is the 'excerpts' - the little pieces that belittle and degrade the Smith family's character. I have not read the book as a whole and assume that most of it is a normal biography.

[CA Steve]

40 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

According to my hierarchy (IDK about yours), Elder Oaks, John Taylor, and Brigham Young get the upper hand over Bushman. Both cannot be true. Either his "private and public character was impeachable" or "magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture." I'll take the prophet's stance and let the facts fix themselves.

Problem was, Bushman wasn't being used incorrectly in most cases and not a whole lot of skewing had to be done by Runnels. Antis will target the weak link - the spot they can get in or use to discredit. Apparently that's Bushman right now.

 

Again, my disagreement with Bushman is the 'excerpts' - the little pieces that belittle and degrade the Smith family's character. I have not read the book as a whole and assume that most of it is a normal biography.

This probably deserves its own thread, but would you mind explaining why you think it impeaches the Smith family character to claim they were involved with magic?

 

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

I have not read the whole book and I do not disagree with the book as a whole - in order to be as well known as it is I'm sure it is in general a normal biography. I disagree with the 'excerpts' as you would call them - the sections Bushman inserts that state very large assumptions about Joseph's character - assumptions not supported by facts. Like saying Joseph Smith was involved in occultist magic that stuck with him to the end or that Joseph Smith Sr. compensated for his failures by turning to drink. Or that Joseph Jr.'s largest motivation in receiving the revelation was to redeem his failed father. These and others cannot be logically defended by facts and they undermine the cleanliness of those called to carry out the restoration. While the entirety of the book may not be this way, the 'excerpts' or little pieces Bushman has chosen to throw in paint an incomplete and discordant picture of the Prophet Joseph - one that leaves me surprised that an LDS historian would be promoting it. I'm not accusing Bushman of anything - I can't know his motivations for inserting those 'excerpts'. However, when I find that a biography contains such large assumptions, I know I can easily find a more truthful source to learn about the Prophet Joseph.

Oh I definitely agree that the facts are important - and that they should be known. That's why I've taken the time to learn them. I merely caution against putting the facts over the faith - believing 'facts' about the Prophet Joseph that the Lord's revelations contradict. In my 'evidence hierarchy', scriptures and words of prophets get #1 over any perceived factual evidence. If facts and prophets don't match up, I take the prophets and the facts always straighten themselves out. Facts can be skewed, warped, twisted, or simply absent at the time. Truth will always be truth.

I'm not looking at this as an issue of LDS Answers vs. Bushman. I'm looking at this as the Lord's scripture vs. Bushman (the view LDS Answers attempts to take as well), so Bushman must be defended since he is in opposition to my #1 source. Example of his opposition? How's this for a contrast. In '96 Elder Oaks said:

In contrast, Bushman says:

According to my hierarchy (IDK about yours), Elder Oaks, John Taylor, and Brigham Young get the upper hand over Bushman. Both cannot be true. Either his "private and public character was impeachable" or "magic and religion melded in the Smith family culture." I'll take the prophet's stance and let the facts fix themselves.

Problem was, Bushman wasn't being used incorrectly in most cases and not a whole lot of skewing had to be done by Runnels. Antis will target the weak link - the spot they can get in or use to discredit. Apparently that's Bushman right now.

I've never seen anyone (Runnels included) successfully use the Book of Mormon (the most correct book on earth) successfully against itself.

Again, my disagreement with Bushman is the 'excerpts' - the little pieces that belittle and degrade the Smith family's character. I have not read the book as a whole and assume that most of it is a normal biography.

Let me give you one example which demonstrates how Bradley Young (author of the article you linked on LDSAnswers.org) has misrepresented Bushman and RSR.

Young gives this quote:  "The Smiths have been diagnosed as a dysfunctional family that produced a psychologically crippled son."  I didn't remember that from my reading of the book so I looked it up.  It is the first sentence of a paragraph.  Do you know what Bushman does in the rest of the paragraph?  He explains why he disagrees with that "diagnosis" by the people of that time.

I imagine that if I took the time to look up some of the other quotes Young uses I would find that they were similarly taken out of context.  I encourage you to read the book -- I think you are unlikely to find a more truthful or better biography of the Prophet Joseph.

Bushman's writings about Joseph and magic are not in contrast to the quotes you gave from Presidents Taylor and Young.  When Bushman suggests that magic was a preparatory gospel for Joseph, he isn't saying that in a derogatory way.  For Young, you, or others to suggest that it was is to disregard the point that Bushman made in that chapter.

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This probably deserves its own thread, but would you mind explaining why you think it impeaches the Smith family character to claim they were involved with magic?

 

Sure. Magic, as described by Mormon, Alma, Paul, and other scriptural prophets, is Satanism or the power of the devil. It's real (as shown by the first vision accounts) and is dangerous. God's power and Satan's power are opposites. The scriptures (especially Exodus) condemn sorcery and magic as very serious sins, punishable by death. To say that the Smith family was involved in magic would be to say that Satan had a lot of power over them and that they were actively involved in exercising his power - a very serious sin. It doesn't make sense that magic would be a 'preparatory gospel'. It is the opposite of the gospel. It seriously undermines the character and integrity of the Smith family to say they played with Satan's power and then suited up for church time so they could use God's power. Worthiness doesn't work that way. Here's the article I shared earlier on this subject:

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Sure. Magic, as described by Mormon, Alma, Paul, and other scriptural prophets, is Satanism or the power of the devil. It's real (as shown by the first vision accounts) and is dangerous. God's power and Satan's power are opposites. The scriptures (especially Exodus) condemn sorcery and magic as very serious sins, punishable by death. To say that the Smith family was involved in magic would be to say that Satan had a lot of power over them and that they were actively involved in exercising his power - a very serious sin. It doesn't make sense that magic would be a 'preparatory gospel'. It is the opposite of the gospel. It seriously undermines the character and integrity of the Smith family to say they played with Satan's power and then suited up for church time so they could use God's power. Worthiness doesn't work that way. Here's the article I shared earlier on this subject:

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

Well, I think you need to carefully consider your opinion on this as well as the assumptions you have made.  It's a fact that Joseph and his family were involved in magic.  The Book of Mormon was translated by the seer stone that Joseph used in his practice of this magic that Bushman and many other historians have documented.

Edited January 31, 2017 by rockpond

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Sure. Magic, as described by Mormon, Alma, Paul, and other scriptural prophets, is Satanism or the power of the devil. It's real (as shown by the first vision accounts) and is dangerous. God's power and Satan's power are opposites. The scriptures (especially Exodus) condemn sorcery and magic as very serious sins, punishable by death. To say that the Smith family was involved in magic would be to say that Satan had a lot of power over them and that they were actively involved in exercising his power - a very serious sin. It doesn't make sense that magic would be a 'preparatory gospel'. It is the opposite of the gospel. It seriously undermines the character and integrity of the Smith family to say they played with Satan's power and then suited up for church time so they could use God's power. Worthiness doesn't work that way. Here's the article I shared earlier on this subject:

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

Do you consider water-witching (dowsing) to be Satanic magic?

All of our wells in southeastern Idaho (nearly 100% LDS; there was only one non-member in my elementary growing up, and his atheist father had no problem with us praying in school. My town was sandwiched between Whitney, where President Benson was from, and Clifton, where President Lee was from. This was the heart of active, conservative LDS) were found by water-witching. This includes strong LDS families, including families connected to prophets. 

The reason I ask is the Smith family treasure digging activities have a lot of similarities to water-witching. And as for the alleged "faculty of Abrax" stuff --- if true, they weren't under gospel covenants yet. I don't understand the motivation for denying at all costs that they may have been involved with folk magic of the area and time. I don't see how this is a problem, or how this would disqualify them from being used by God.

Ditto for Joseph Smith, Sr.'s drinking, or improvidence. How does this somehow nullify God calling and using the Smith family?

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Sure. Magic, as described by Mormon, Alma, Paul, and other scriptural prophets, is Satanism or the power of the devil. It's real (as shown by the first vision accounts) and is dangerous. God's power and Satan's power are opposites. The scriptures (especially Exodus) condemn sorcery and magic as very serious sins, punishable by death. To say that the Smith family was involved in magic would be to say that Satan had a lot of power over them and that they were actively involved in exercising his power - a very serious sin. It doesn't make sense that magic would be a 'preparatory gospel'. It is the opposite of the gospel. It seriously undermines the character and integrity of the Smith family to say they played with Satan's power and then suited up for church time so they could use God's power. Worthiness doesn't work that way. Here's the article I shared earlier on this subject:

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

Did you know that Deseret Bookstore sells RSR? Could the current prophet and the leaders be wrong in allowing this book in the church-owned store? Are these leaders wrong?

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let me give you one example which demonstrates how Bradley Young (author of the article you linked on LDSAnswers.org) has misrepresented Bushman and RSR.

Young gives this quote:  "The Smiths have been diagnosed as a dysfunctional family that produced a psychologically crippled son."  I didn't remember that from my reading of the book so I looked it up.  It is the first sentence of a paragraph.  Do you know what Bushman does in the rest of the paragraph?  He explains why he disagrees with that "diagnosis" by the people of that time.

Bushman's writings about Joseph and magic are not in contrast to the quotes you gave from Presidents Taylor and Young.  When Bushman suggests that magic was a preparatory gospel for Joseph, he isn't saying that in a derogatory way.  For Young, you, or others to suggest that it was is to disregard the point that Bushman made in that chapter.

Can I get a quote of the whole paragraph? I'd like to see it in its entirety if it's being misrepresented.

As I said in a previous comment just posted, magic is the power of Satan. It doesn't work to say that the Smith family could play around with Satan's power and then suit up for righteous time with God's power. Worthiness doesn't work that way. That said, the quotes are in contrast. I'm not talking about the general point Bushman made in the chapter - I'm talking about the 'excerpts' that are at odds with church doctrine and scripture. One says the Prophet was full of integrity and his character was impeachable. The other says he was playing around with Satanism even after seeing the first vision and knowing of God's existence and power. 1 + 1 does not equal 3 and satanism cannot be combined with priesthood authority to equal a gospel restoration.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

I have not read the whole book and I do not disagree with the book as a whole - in order to be as well known as it is I'm sure it is in general a normal biography. I disagree with the 'excerpts' as you would call them - the sections Bushman inserts that state very large assumptions about Joseph's character - assumptions not supported by facts. Like saying Joseph Smith was involved in occultist magic that stuck with him to the end or that Joseph Smith Sr. compensated for his failures by turning to drink.

Joseph Smith drank too (not saying he was compensating for failures though).  You need to study real history.  Joseph drank wine in the Carthage Jail before he was killed (and at other times too).

Brigham Young had his own beer brewery, iirc.

You need to study the history of the WofW to put it all into context.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Can I get a quote of the whole paragraph? I'd like to see it in its entirety if it's being misrepresented.

As I said in a previous comment just posted, magic is the power of Satan. It doesn't work to say that the Smith family could play around with Satan's power and then suit up for righteous time with God's power. Worthiness doesn't work that way. That said, the quotes are in contrast. I'm not talking about the general point Bushman made in the chapter - I'm talking about the 'excerpts' that are at odds with church doctrine and scripture. One says the Prophet was full of integrity and his character was impeachable. The other says he was playing around with Satanism even after seeing the first vision and knowing of God's existence and power. 1 + 1 does not equal 3 and satanism cannot be combined with priesthood authority to equal a gospel restoration.

I don't have a way to copy/paste the paragraph and I am not going to transcribe it for you.  You are making all kinds of false assumptions and I cannot take the time to correct all of them.  You need to do your own study and research, the snippet methodology you are currently using is leading you astray of the truth.

Bushman does NOT say that Joseph and his family are "playing around with Satanism".  This is one of a number of false assumptions you are making.  (Side note:  Do you realize that Bushman is a Stake Patriarch and not a critic of the church?)

If you believe that Joseph was not involved in magic, how do you explain his use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon that we now read and regard as scripture?  Where did the stone come from if not from Joseph's involvement with magic?  Have you read the LDS.org gospel topics essay on this subject?

p.s.  A couple of times now you have typed "impeachable" where you clearly mean to use the word "unimpeachable".  You might want to correct those.

Edited January 31, 2017 by rockpond

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, I think you need to carefully consider your opinion on this as well as the assumptions you have made.  It's a fact that Joseph and his family were involved in magic.  The Book of Mormon was translated by the seer stone that Joseph used in his practice of this magic that Bushman and many other historians have documented.

Seer stones aren't magic. Magic is the power of Satan (see scriptures in the LDS Answers article). We know from D&C that seer stones are given to those that enter the celestial kingdom. You think they're 'magic' or satanist? Not a chance. "No unclean thing can enter the presence of God". God can use physical things like Moses' rod, the Liahona, and Urim and Thummim to reveal His power and aid His servants. These things are done by priesthood authority and power. Satan has a counterfeit: magic. Pharaoh's magicians were able to mimic Moses' miracles, but not with the power and authority Moses had. Moses' serpent rod devoured the rods of the evil magicians. The two powers do not gel together - they are opposites, and the use of Satan's power (what we call magic), is a very serious sin.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

As I said in a previous comment just posted, magic is the power of Satan. It doesn't work to say that the Smith family could play around with Satan's power and then suit up for righteous time with God's power. 

Joseph Smith used the same seer stone for treasure seeking that he used to translate the Book of Mormon.  How do you explain that if you believe what you wrote above?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Seer stones aren't magic. Magic is the power of Satan (see scriptures in the LDS Answers article). We know from D&C that seer stones are given to those that enter the celestial kingdom. You think they're 'magic' or satanist? Not a chance. "No unclean thing can enter the presence of God". God can use physical things like Moses' rod, the Liahona, and Urim and Thummim to reveal His power and aid His servants. These things are done by priesthood authority and power. Satan has a counterfeit: magic. Pharaoh's magicians were able to mimic Moses' miracles, but not with the power and authority Moses had. Moses' serpent rod devoured the rods of the evil magicians. The two powers do not gel together - they are opposites, and the use of Satan's power (what we call magic), is a very serious sin.

See my comment above. Which category would water-witching fall under?