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

[rockpond]

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.

If you had read RSR than you would understand the "magic" that Bushman was referring to and it wasn't Satanic.  Do you understand how Joseph used the seer stone prior to his use of it with the Book of Mormon?  That is the magic that is being referred to and it is well documented.

To be clear:  Bushman is not claiming that Joseph was involved in Satanism.  If LDSAnswers.org has led you to believe that than they are mistaken or you have misunderstood.

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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?

Do we consider everything that Deseret Book sells to be doctrine and truth? Of course not. Deseret Book is a store and may carry products that do not completely gel with truth.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Do we consider everything that Deseret Book sells to be doctrine and truth? Of course not. Deseret Book is a store and may carry products that do not completely gel with truth.

Ha.

DB is a church owned entity.  One might reasonably expect that it would not sell a book which claims our founding prophet was involved in Satanism.  But maybe we should ask the good folks over at ldsanswers.org.

[bdouglas]

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

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.

I'm a direct descendant of Joseph Smith, Sr and Lucy Mack (through Hyrum) and I have read RSR twice now and I never felt that Bushman "degraded the Smith family character." The Smith family "romance" was always that Joseph Smith Sr.'s reverses and failures were due to "charlatans", "unscrupulous partners", "deception", etc.; but the truth is more nuanced. Bushman portrays my Great-Great Grandfather Joseph Sr. as one of the meek of the earth, the kind of man Christ said will ultimately inherit the earth, a man undone by an unforgiving and ruthless market economy in which the strong and unscrupulous rise and the meek fall. It is not hard to see why Joseph Sr. sometimes drank. The point is not that he drank, sometimes to excess, but that he overcame this vice after embracing the restored Gospel.

[Foreigner]

1 hour 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. 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.

Well, it is not SS class at this board.

People who know something about magic say, there is black and white magic, quite different. I do not propose any. But having some knowledge about this world, I see that some people have natural spiritual gifts, given them to help others. I can imagine, that a man destined to be a prophet, can manifest such gifts before.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour 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.

Have you seen the pictures of the seer stone?  It's just a rock. It wasn't a tool of Satan, a special divine rock, or anything magical, mystical, etc. It is and was an ordinary rock.

Clearly, Joseph's Smith believed that it aided him in revelation, looking for buried treasure, spotting treasure guardians, and translating. However, it didn't/doesn't have any special powers just like a dowsing rod doesn't actually have any magical/mystical/divine powers (there are multiple studies on that one). I believe Joseph Smith had a special connection with God, but with our 21st century understanding of religion and science, we can safely say his rock was only a psychological enabler in that relationship, despite JS' belief that it played a more literal role.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I'm a direct descendant of Joseph Smith, Sr and Lucy Mack (through Hyrum) and I have read RSR twice now and I never felt that Bushman "degraded the Smith family character." The Smith family "romance" was always that Joseph Smith Sr.'s reverses and failures were due to "charlatans", "unscrupulous partners", "deception", etc.; but the truth is more nuanced. Bushman portrays my Great-Great Grandfather Joseph Sr. as one of the meek of the earth, the kind of man Christ said will ultimately inherit the earth, a man undone by an unforgiving and ruthless market economy in which the strong and unscrupulous rise and the meek fall. It is not hard to see why Joseph Sr. sometimes drank. The point is not that he drank, sometimes to excess, but that he overcame this vice after embracing the restored Gospel.

I think so much led up to Joseph Smith Jr. wanting to change the world for good, including his upbringing and seeing/having so much hardship. I think for the most part, God may have been guiding him, but not so much in other ways. I believe he and his father were human, not perfect. I believe his dad and his grandpa were Universalists and that Joseph believed much of it and it may be why the LDS church is the way it is. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/doctrine-and-covenants/universalism-and-revelations-joseph-smith

I'm fascinated by someone like yourself. You should post more!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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?

I wouldn't assume that just because DB carries a book that it has been approved of by GAs or any church authority at any level.  I saw no sign of it when I was involved in selling Church books and quite a bit of suggestions they weren't given the large amount of church folklore and hobbies that are discouraged by the Church getting sold.  For example, Rowe's stuff was sold there for awhile even though it got eventually put on a "Spurious Materials" list banning it from CES.

Not to say leaders would disapprove of the book, just that DB isn't a sign of anything except midmangement approval.

Otoh, if RSR is referenced in the Gospel Topics essays, which have been identified as being vetted by apostles and iirc final approval is given by the First Presidency, then that would say something.  Also if Bushman turned out to be a go to guy for church publications and authorities on historical issues.  

I think the below settles the "if" issue.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

References to and writings of Richard Bushman on LDS.org:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/make-christ-not-joseph-smith-anchor-of-testimony-historian-says?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/04/the-character-of-joseph-smith-insights-from-his-holographs?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/1830-pivotal-year-in-the-fulness-of-times?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-teacher-manual/expulsion-from-jackson-county?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/12/the-year-in-church-history?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

http://broadcast2.lds.org/ldsradio/Perspectives/2011-08-0040-richard-bushman-64k-eng.mp3

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true  (references RSR)

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/10/prophets-seers-and-revelators?lang=eng&_r=1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/01/thou-art-still-chosen?lang=eng&clang=ase=

https://www.lds.org/topics/peace-and-violence-among-19th-century-latter-day-saints?lang=eng&old=true

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-religious-experience-of-mormonism

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a-mormon-worldview

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/b-h-roberts-after-fifty-years-still-witnessing-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-11-the-lords-voice-in-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&clang=pes

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/two-principles-for-any-economy?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/06/the-path-to-palmyra?lang=eng (cites RSR)

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/the-truth-restored?lang=eng#18-PD60001510_000_12 (cites RSR)

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-salem-treasure-erastus-snow?lang=eng (cites RSR)

Tons more, but hopefully proves my point.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

References to or writings of James F. Stoddard, III on LDS.org....

 

[Calm]

References to and writings of Bradley K Young on LDS.org...

[Calm]

I don't agree with everything Bushman concludes, just as an FYI about my own bias.  I also prefer his Beginnings of Mormonism to RSR.

I have also found LDS answers to be unreliable in their interpretation of others' comments, specifically Scott Gordon and Brian Hales, who I know personally.  I would urge anyone using LDSAnswers for research to skip their commentary and just look at the actual sources, not what was cherry picked of comments.

I do not doubt their sincerity and desire to teach the truth, just their ability or willingness to be open and understanding about the positions of others who differ in perspective from their own.  They appear to me to be pretty much constantly getting it wrong.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don't agree with everything Bushman concludes.

I have also found LDS answers to unreliable in their interpretation of others' comments, specifically Scott Gordon and Brian Hales, who I know personally.  I would urge anyone using LDSAnswers for research to skip their commentary and just look at the actual sources, not what was cherry picked of comments.

I do not doubt their sincerity and desire to teach the truth, just their ability or willingness to be open and understanding about the positions of others who differ in perspective from their own.  They appear to me to be pretty much constantly getting it wrong.

Good research above (gave you some rep points, not that you need 'em).  Hopefully what you've shared will help Faith, Freedom, Family (can we abbreviate that to FFF?).

I also agree that I believe the Stoddards and Young to be sincere in what they hope to accomplish but what I have read of their articles was very disappointing.

[Calm]

Some info on folk magic and the Smith family:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Occultism_and_magic/Origin

"Therefore, Joseph and his family viewed folk magic and the use of seer stones as not falling under this Biblical condemnation. It is clear that Joseph and his contemporaries believed that one could gain knowledge from such activities as dowsing (using a rod to find water, ore, or buried treasure) and the use of the seer stones. This does not mean, however, that Joseph understood such activities to be a form of magic.

In Joseph's day, the power of (for example) dowsing was seen as a manifestation of "how the world worked." An article published in 1825 described how the downward bob of a divining rode "closely resembles the dip of the magnetic needle, when traversing a bed or ore."[8] A journal of science reported the idea that "the rod is influenced by ores."[9]

An early British dowser denounced the idea that dowsing for ore was based on magic. "it [the rod] guided mee to the Orifice of a lead mine. [The rod is] of kin to the Load-stone [magnet], drawing Iron to it by a secret vertue, inbred by nature, and not by any conjuration as some have fondly imagined."[10]

Using a divining rod was seen in these examples as a manifestation of natural law, and requiring the grace of God to operate

Thus, divining was seen in these examples as a manifestation of natural law. Just as one might use a compass or lode-stone to find true north, without understanding the principles or mathematics of magnetism which underlay it, so one could use dowsing as a tool, without understanding the principles by which it operated.

It is further clear that those who used divinization by rods, for example, believed that the rod's natural ability also required the grace of God to operate. Hence, practitioners would consecrate their rods, and pray to God to bless their efforts.[11] Of such matters, Oliver Cowdery was told in an early revelation, "without faith you can do nothing."[12] Like any natural ability, Joseph believed that the gift and tools of seership (in the broader sense) could be misused. As he told Brigham Young, "most...who do find [a seer stone] make an evil use of it."[13]And, Emma Smith's hostile brother Alvah would later remember that Joseph told him "that his gift in seeing with a [seer] stone and hat, was a gift from God."[14]"

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good research above (gave you some rep points, not that you need 'em).  Hopefully what you've shared will help Faith, Freedom, Family (can we abbreviate that to FFF?).

I also agree that I believe the Stoddards and Young to be sincere in what they hope to accomplish but what I have read of their articles was very disappointing.

The Stoddards' material on their site reminds me of when Joseph Fielding McConkie vehemently insisted that Joseph Smith never used a seer stone to translate at all, at any point. It seemed like this was a hill that he chose for his faith to die on, and he was not going to countenance any possibility that his understanding might be wrong on that point. That's how the lds answers site feels to me: good, believing Latter-day Saints, but very uninformed about historical matters, and convinced that the historical information known and accepted by mature and informed believers must be anti-Mormon lies. This approach is also completely not helpful in helping people with historical concerns. 

I worry about people like them, because they are the type to throw the baby out with the bath water when things finally give. 

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't assume that just because DB carries a book that it has been approved of by GAs or any church authority at any level.  I saw no sign of it when I was involved in selling Church books and quite a bit of suggestions they weren't given the large amount of church folklore and hobbies that are discouraged by the Church getting sold.  For example, Rowe's stuff was sold there for awhile even though it got eventually put on a "Spurious Materials" list banning it from CES.

Not to say leaders would disapprove of the book, just that DB isn't a sign of anything.

Otoh, if RSR is referenced in the Gospel Topics essays, which have been identified as being vetted by apostles and iirc final approval is given by the First Presidency.

Richard Bushman is one of the scholars associated with the Joseph Smith Papers project, which is undertaken by the Church History Department under the auspices of the leadership of the Church.

Rest assured Bushman is respected and has a good deal of stature in the Church.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Have you seen the pictures of the seer stone?  It's just a rock. It wasn't a tool of Satan, a special divine rock, or anything magical, mystical, etc. It is and was an ordinary rock.

Clearly, Joseph's Smith believed that it aided him in revelation, looking for buried treasure, spotting treasure guardians, and translating. However, it didn't/doesn't have any special powers just like a dowsing rod doesn't actually have any magical/mystical/divine powers (there are multiple studies on that one). I believe Joseph Smith had a special connection with God, but with our 21st century understanding of religion and science, we can safely say his rock was only a psychological enabler in that relationship, despite JS' belief that it played a more literal role.

Can't agree with this.
Seer stones may not be "magic" but it is not just a rock either.
But this way of thinking is very popular among our "enlightened" modern membership.  Same false idea that there is no actual power in the garments, just reminders of covenants.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

 That's how the lds answers site feels to me: good, believing Latter-day Saints, but very uninformed about historical matters, and convinced that the historical information known and accepted by mature and informed believers must be anti-Mormon lies. This approach is also completely not helpful in helping people with historical concerns. 

I worry about people like them, because they are the type to throw the baby out with the bath water when things finally give. 

Their insistence that the label "magic" must be applied in a certain way ignores actual usage, especially by academics such as Bushman.  Knowing that renders their criticism useless if their poor quote mining didn't make that clear already.

[Calm]

"Joseph Fielding McConkie vehemently insisted that Joseph Smith never used a seer stone to translate at all, at any point."

CFR please.

PS:  if you mean he didn't believe JS used any found seerstones in translation, perhaps you are referring to the paper he did with Craig Ostler where he trashes Whitmer's description of the process?

Edited January 31, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Stoddards' material on their site reminds me of when Joseph Fielding McConkie vehemently insisted that Joseph Smith never used a seer stone to translate at all, at any point. It seemed like this was a hill that he chose for his faith to die on, and he was not going to countenance any possibility that his understanding might be wrong on that point.

Calm has already given a CFR on this, but I'll join her in it, as her post didn't link to yours, and you might otherwise miss it.

It is news to me that Joseph Fielding McConkie insisted this.

 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Joseph Fielding McConkie vehemently insisted that Joseph Smith never used a seer stone to translate at all, at any point."

CFR please.

This is a representative example. There are others.

http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/Rel121/Process of Translating the BofM.pdf

Page 4

"Mr. Whitmer is not a reliable source on this matter . . .  Such an explanation is, in our judgment, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith and to undermine the validity of the revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon."

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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.

You can download RSR free with a free trial membership at scribd.com, see https://www.scribd.com/doc/284906905/Download-Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling-by-Richard-L-Bushman-pdf .  From there you can freely check each quotation for context.  A free download is also available at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x53kjf7 .

Prof Bushman is currently one of the LDS Church's general editors of the massive Joseph Smith Papers Project, which is available online and in print.  Bushman is also an ordained patriarch.

As to "magic," scholars do not see a real distinction between magic and religion, but rather each religion defines what is prohibited.  The problem is that so much of what takes place in authentic Judaism and Christianity looks on the surface like "magic" that religion and magic become indistinguishable.  For example, you'll recall that famous scene from Exodus in which the magicians of Pharaoh cast down their staffs and the staffs turn into snakes.  So Moses and Aaron cast down their staffs, which likewise turn into snakes, and those last snakes eat the snakes of Pharaoh.  You should notice that there is no mention of "satanism" in Exodus, but rather of prohibited activity.  God can presumably use whatever means he likes to interact with his human children, including use of objects and methods which some people may find objectionable.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is a representative example. There are others.

http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/Rel121/Process of Translating the BofM.pdf

Page 4

"Mr. Whitmer is not a reliable source on this matter . . .  Such an explanation is, in our judgment, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith and to undermine the validity of the revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon."

I am regularly astounded at the lack of familiarity of the Saints with their own history, but perhaps I am being unfair.  I cannot assume that everyone has been immersed in this material for half a century, as I have.  Some of these more glaring errors would no longer be made today, although I do have an RLDS friend with a master's degree who does not believe that Joseph ever used a stone for anything -- except maybe skipping on a pond.  I have never argued that point with that friend, and don't plan to.  

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

PS:  if you mean he didn't believe JS used any found seerstones in translation, perhaps you are referring to the paper he did with Craig Ostler where he trashes Whitmer's description of the process?

It wasn't just the description of the process of "reading" off the BoM text that he trashed (B.H. Roberts attacked that in a landmark article, but fully accepted the seer stone descriptions). The full quote I ellipsed (lest anyone claim that I misrepresented him) reads:

" David Whitmer was repeatedly reported to have said that after the loss of the 116 pages, the Lord took both the plates and the Urim and Thummim from the Prophet, never to be returned. In their stead, David Whitmer maintained, the Prophet used an oval-shaped, chocolate-colored seer stone slightly larger than an egg. Thus, everything we have in the Book of Mormon, according to Mr. Whitmer, was translated by placing the chocolate-colored stone in a hat into which Joseph would bury his head so as to close out the light." 

From this, he concluded:

"Such an explanation is, in our judgment, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith and to undermine the validity of the revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon." 

Note that this is more geared towards the seer stone, and not the "reading" off process. He later tries to deal with quotes about the seer stone in a hat by using a purported William Smith quote (which I haven't personally verified): " Further, regarding the use of a hat in translation, Joseph's brother William Smith explained that the Prophet used the Urim and Thummim attached to the breastplate by a rod that held the seer stones set in the rims of a bow before his eyes. "The instrument caused a strain on Joseph's eyes, and he sometimes resorted to covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part."

He concludes: "What David Whitmer is asking us to believe is that the Lord had Moroni seal up the plates and the means by which they were to be translated hundreds of years before they would come into Joseph Smith's possession and then decided to have the Prophet use a seer stone found while digging a well so that none of these things would be necessary after all. Is this, we would ask, really a credible explanation of the way the heavens operate?"

I have read other examples from him (shared years ago on the FAIR list). Despite his otherwise good gospel scholarship, he did not want to believe any part of the seer stone --- despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

[Calm]

I know a few others who feel that way about the seerstones and insist it was all done with the interpreters.

I wonder what his reaction would have been to the recent stuff on LDS.org and in the Ensign.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Calm