Richard Bushman: Evil?

[jkwilliams]

So, I stumbled into a conversation with someone from https://ldsanswers.org on a Mormon history FB group. She told me that Bushman distorted the true history to get the approval of the world and hurt the church. She pointed me to an article on that site that said Joseph Smith wasn’t involved in things like peepstones and  divining rods. How do we know this? Because a true prophet would not do such things. I told her I thought the article was hardly compelling, at which point she called me to repentance and said, unlike Bushman, she actually believes in Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling.

Who are these people, and how have I missed them? They seem to be a mix of McConkie-esque sanitized history and a healthy serving of self-righteousness. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

So, I stumbled into a conversation with someone from https://ldsanswers.org on a Mormon history FB group. She told me that Bushman distorted the true history to get the approval of the world and hurt the church. She pointed me to an article on that site that said Joseph Smith wasn’t involved in things like peepstones and  divining rods. How do we know this? Because a true prophet would not do such things. I told her I thought the article was hardly compelling, at which point she called me to repentance and said, unlike Bushman, she actually believes in Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling.

Who are these people, and how have I missed them? They seem to be a mix of McConkie-esque sanitized history and a healthy serving of self-righteousness. 

These are the people that won't believe anything they don't like unless it comes out of the prophet's or an apostle's mouth.  And if they still don't like it after it does, then they just decide that he's fallen (and maybe start their own church).

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

These are the people that won't believe anything they don't like unless it comes out of the prophet's or an apostle's mouth.  And if they still don't like it after it does, then they just decide that he's fallen (and maybe start their own church).

She reminded me of a dogmatic Ahab. 

[CA Steve]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

She reminded me of a dogmatic Ahab. 

"dogmatic Ahab" is redundant.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

"dogmatic Ahab" is redundant.

Well, more dogmatic Ahab. 

[InCognitus]

42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, I stumbled into a conversation with someone from https://ldsanswers.org on a Mormon history FB group. She told me that Bushman distorted the true history to get the approval of the world and hurt the church. She pointed me to an article on that site that said Joseph Smith wasn’t involved in things like peepstones and  divining rods. How do we know this? Because a true prophet would not do such things. I told her I thought the article was hardly compelling, at which point she called me to repentance and said, unlike Bushman, she actually believes in Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling.

Who are these people, and how have I missed them? They seem to be a mix of McConkie-esque sanitized history and a healthy serving of self-righteousness. 

Don't let her read Saints. She'll blame Bushman for that too.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

She pointed me to an article on that site that said Joseph Smith wasn’t involved in things like peepstones and  divining rods. How do we know this? Because a true prophet would not do such things

I never understood defensiveness about JS messing with goofy stuff like that. Reason one: It was a lot less goofy in the day. Two: Miraculous behavior from flawed individuals is what God-At-Work looks like. Imperfections provide a contrast that we'd never get from low-flaw people.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Chum

[Brant Gardner]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Who are these people, and how have I missed them?

There are a relatively recent phenomenon. Some, probably not all, are also part of the Heartlander group. They tend to be very conservative. Lately, they have books and articles out that suggest that Joseph would never use a seer stone (but, of course, did use the urim and thummim). Bushman is a favorite target (as is Interpreter and Book of Mormon Central).

There are certainly a lot more than I would hope. To have missed them I envy the circles you've been in.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Don't let her read Saints. She'll blame Bushman for that too.

Especially if she notices that he is cited in footnotes. 

[Chum]

27 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

To have missed them I envy the circles you've been in.

We call that land Not Utah*.

 * Idaho will one day admit it was Utah all along.

[teddyaware]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, I stumbled into a conversation with someone from https://ldsanswers.org on a Mormon history FB group. She told me that Bushman distorted the true history to get the approval of the world and hurt the church. She pointed me to an article on that site that said Joseph Smith wasn’t involved in things like peepstones and  divining rods. How do we know this? Because a true prophet would not do such things. I told her I thought the article was hardly compelling, at which point she called me to repentance and said, unlike Bushman, she actually believes in Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling.

Who are these people, and how have I missed them? They seem to be a mix of McConkie-esque sanitized history and a healthy serving of self-righteousness. 

I read a recent article from this group in which a compellingly convincing case is made that Bushman twisted a statement made by Lucy Mack Smith in order to justify the oft made claim that the Smith’s were practitioners of folk magic. After carefully weighing the evidence, I’ve also concluded that Bushman is flat out wrong on his interpretation of mother Smith’s statement and that the LDS answers group is right on this particular issue of contention.

In fact, when one understands mother Smith’s statement in context she’s actually making the opposite point, i.e. that the Smith’s were hardworking people and most certainly not given to involvement in occult practices. The fact that Bushman could have gotten something so wrong because he wanted to push the notion that the Smith’s were largely indolent practitioners of folk magic has caused me to wonder if I should view the rest of his work with skepticism. I also find it interesting that Bushman’s work is often lauded by critical former members and unbelievers.

 

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I read a recent article from this group in which a compellingly convincing case is made that Bushman twisted a statement made by Lucy Mack Smith in order to justify the oft made claim that the Smith’s were practitioners of folk magic. After carefully weighing the evidence, I’ve also concluded that Bushman is flat out wrong on his interpretation of mother Smith’s statement and that the LDS answers group is right on this particular issue of contention.

In fact, when one understands mother Smith’s statement in context she’s actually making the opposite point, i.e. that the Smith’s were hardworking people and most certainly not given to involvement in occult practices. The fact that Bushman could have gotten something so wrong because he wanted to push the notion that the Smith’s were largely indolent practitioners of folk magic has caused me to wonder if I should view the rest of his work with skepticism. I also find it interesting that Bushman’s work is often lauded by critical former members and unbelievers.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about Hamblin's piece cited on FAIR. As others have pointed out before, Lucy Smith's wording is ambiguous and could be taken either way. Given the context of folk magic and its practice in the Smith home, no twisting is needed to support Bushman's interpretation. By the way, many of us unbelievers also like ice cream. Interesting, no?

[pogi]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I read a recent article from this group in which a compellingly convincing case is made that Bushman twisted a statement made by Lucy Mack Smith in order to justify the oft made claim that the Smith’s were practitioners of folk magic. After carefully weighing the evidence, I’ve also concluded that Bushman is flat out wrong on his interpretation of mother Smith’s statement and that the LDS answers group is right on this particular issue of contention.

In fact, when one understands mother Smith’s statement in context she’s actually making the opposite point, i.e. that the Smith’s were hardworking people and most certainly not given to involvement in occult practices. The fact that Bushman could have gotten something so wrong because he wanted to push the notion that the Smith’s were largely indolent practitioners of folk magic has caused me to wonder if I should view the rest of his work with skepticism. I also find it interesting that Bushman’s work is often lauded by critical former members and unbelievers.

 In terms of folk magic, there is far more than "mother Smith's" statement that we rely on to understand the families involvement in folk magic.

In case you weren't aware, Joseph Smith was actually tried and convicted of being a "disorderly person" due to his treasure seeking activities.   A "disorderly person", according to the statute in New York at the time was defined as "all jugglers [deceivers], and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found."

Joseph Smith was hired by Josiah Stowell to find a lost silver mine. Josiah Stowells nephew filled the complaint against him. Joseph Smith was convicted of said crime.  An account of the proceedings was published in Fraser's Magazine:

Quote

In the course of the trial, Joseph testified in his own behalf and acknowledged he had a stone which enabled him to see "where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were" and that he had used this stone to help others look for treasure.  Joseph Smith, Sr., confirmed his son's story, as did the alleged victim, Josiah Stowell, who testified that Joseph had not deceived him but saw genuine visions in the stone. Stowell was a respected member of the Presbyterian Church and had a good reputation in his community. He, like many men of his time, had little difficulty reconciling his Christian beliefs with a belief in folk magic. Also testifying on Joseph's behalf was one of the workmen hired to dig for the treasure, who explained how his spade struck what he believed was a treasure chest before it sank into the ground due to an enchantment.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V36N04_63.pdf

Joseph Smith's peep stones are no secret.  What do you think those rocks were that the church possesses and published pictures of? 

 

 

[teddyaware]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

 In terms of folk magic, there is far more than "mother Smith's" statement that we rely on to understand the families involvement in folk magic.

In case you weren't aware, Joseph Smith was actually tried and convicted of being a "disorderly person" due to his treasure seeking activities.   A "disorderly person", according to the statute in New York at the time was defined as "all jugglers [deceivers], and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found."

Joseph Smith was hired by Josiah Stowell to find a lost silver mine. Josiah Stowells nephew filled the complaint against him. Joseph Smith was convicted of said crime.  An account of the proceedings was published in Fraser's Magazine:

Joseph Smith's peep stones are no secret.  What do you think those rocks were that the church possesses and published pictures of? 

 

 

I was drawing attention to what I believe to be Bushman’s incorrect parsing of a specific statement made by Lucy Mach Smith. Quite honestly, I think Bushman’s interpretation of that particular passage to be way off base, and I wonder why he fell for it.

In response to your questions I would ask:

Do you believe an actual angel of God revealed to Joseph Smith the location of the Book of Mormon plates, or do you believe the location of the plates was revealed by means of folk magic?

Do you believe the plates of the Book of Mormon are real, or do you believe them to be some sort of conjuring made possible by means of folk magic?

Do you believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, or do you believe he translated them, at least in part, by means of folk magic?

Do you believe the three witness of the Book of Mormon saw an actual angel of God who showed them the plates of the Book of Mormon, or do you believe whatever the three witnesses witnessed was produced by magic and not the Spirit of God?

 

 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

I was drawing attention to what I believe to be Bushman’s incorrect parsing of a specific statement made by Lucy Mach Smith. Quite honestly, I think Bushman’s interpretation of that particular passage to be way off base, and I wonder why he fell for it.

In response to your questions I would ask:

Do you believe an actual angel of God revealed to Joseph Smith the location of the Book of Mormon plates, or do you believe the location of the plates was revealed by means of folk magic?

Do you believe the plates of the Book of Mormon are real, or do you believe them to be some sort of conjuring made possible by means of folk magic?

Do you believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, or do you believe he translated them, at least in part, by means of folk magic?

Do you believe the three witness of the Book of Mormon saw an actual angel of God who showed them the plates of the Book of Mormon, or do you believe whatever the three witnesses witnessed was produced by magic and not the Spirit of God?

 

 

Address the history I mention first.  Then I’ll answer your questions.  Do you believe that Joseph was convicted of a crime due to his treasure seeking activities using a “peep stone”?

Do you believe that he had possession of and used said peep stones in scrying folk magic practices before he even knew about the Book of Mormon?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I was drawing attention to what I believe to be Bushman’s incorrect parsing of a specific statement made by Lucy Mach Smith. Quite honestly, I think Bushman’s interpretation of that particular passage to be way off base, and I wonder why he fell for it.

In response to your questions I would ask:

Do you believe an actual angel of God revealed to Joseph Smith the location of the Book of Mormon plates, or do you believe the location of the plates was revealed by means of folk magic?

Do you believe the plates of the Book of Mormon are real, or do you believe them to be some sort of conjuring made possible by means of folk magic?

Do you believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, or do you believe he translated them, at least in part, by means of folk magic?

Do you believe the three witness of the Book of Mormon saw an actual angel of God who showed them the plates of the Book of Mormon, or do you believe whatever the three witnesses witnessed was produced by magic and not the Spirit of God?

 

 

What on earth does Joseph’s early experience with folk magic have to do with the visit of Moroni, the plates, and the witnesses? Bushman certainly never said these were the result of folk magic. 

[InCognitus]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What on earth does Joseph’s early experience with folk magic have to do with the visit of Moroni, the plates, and the witnesses? Bushman certainly never said these were the result of folk magic. 

You're right, that's a Mark Hofmann thing.  

[Nevo]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The fact that Bushman could have gotten something so wrong because he wanted to push the notion that the Smiths were largely indolent practitioners of folk magic has caused me to wonder if I should view the rest of his work with skepticism. I also find it interesting that Bushman’s work is often lauded by critical former members and unbelievers.

Yes, here's Bushman's description of the Smiths' "indolence":

Quote

The acquisition of property changed the tempo of family life. Instead of odd jobs and shopkeeping, interspersed with stretches of arduous work in harvest and hay seasons, father and sons now faced daily the unrelenting necessity to clear the land and cultivate a crop. To prepare the land for planting, new settlers cut the underbrush, grubbed up small trees, and piled the cuttings into huge piles. When the ground was cleared, they felled the large trees and dragged them away or girdled them and let them die. When the piles of brush dried out, the farmers burned them in roaring conflagrations that left only blackened stumps, charred logs, and seared ground. Rather than work out the stubborn stumps, most farmers let them rot and plowed or dug around them. A skilled woodsman took seven to ten days to clear a single acre. A pioneer working alone could probably clear ten acres the first year, though at the risk of neglecting fences, garden, and the construction of barn and outbuildings. Lucy remembered that "something like thirty acres of land were got ready for cultivation the first year," a herculean achievement even with the aid of Alvin, Hyrum, and Joseph, Jr.

The farm began to produce a little income at once. The asheries in Palmyra purchased the remains of brush and log fires for working into potash. As late as 1822 Governor DeWitt Clinton listed ashes along with wheat as the two leading exports of the state. The Smiths probably derived some profit from ashes loaded into a cart and hauled into the village. They also sold cord wood in the village and made maple sugar. Other than that, they may not have had a money crop for two years. Most farmers planted corn for family and animals on the first cleared land. Wheat followed in the second year with the possibility of a small surplus beyond the family needs.

The Smiths had to think about a cash crop because of the one dark cloud in the sky: the annual $100 payment on the farm. Failure to meet the payment gave the land agent the legal right to reclaim the farm, improvements and all, with no compensation for the family's labor. In a trade deficit area like western New York where cash was scarce, the agents rarely held to the exact letter of the contract as long as the occupant showed signs of industry. Lucy reported that after the first year the Smiths made "nearly all" of the first payment without being ejected. But repeated shortfalls stretched an agent's patience and endangered all the family had worked for.

The Smiths manufactured small items for sale—black ash baskets and birch brooms—and kept up their refreshment business with cakes, sugar, and molasses. The boys and their father may have fished, hunted, and trapped. Joseph said that all of the children who "were able to render any assistance . . . were obliged to labor hard" to support the family. He took an occasional odd job at a village store when he was there on an errand, and probably worked for nearby established farmers. Lucy credited Alvin, the eldest, with making the second payment. "Alvin went from home to get work, in order to raise the money, and after much hardship and fatigue, returned with the required amount." Alvin set the pattern for the other boys, who in subsequent years regularly dispersed across the countryside in search of employment.

— Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 48–49; compare Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 33.

 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

 In terms of folk magic, there is far more than "mother Smith's" statement that we rely on to understand the families involvement in folk magic.

In case you weren't aware, Joseph Smith was actually tried and convicted of being a "disorderly person" due to his treasure seeking activities.   A "disorderly person", according to the statute in New York at the time was defined as "all jugglers [deceivers], and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found."

Joseph Smith was hired by Josiah Stowell to find a lost silver mine. Josiah Stowells nephew filled the complaint against him. Joseph Smith was convicted of said crime.  An account of the proceedings was published in Fraser's Magazine:

Joseph Smith's peep stones are no secret.  What do you think those rocks were that the church possesses and published pictures of? 

Whether or not Joseph was convicted in that event is subject to debate.   You're probably aware that Oliver Cowdery said Joseph was "honorably acquitted" in this legal issue (Oliver Cowdery, “Letter VIII,” LDS Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1835, 2:200–201).  And there is some question as to whether there was an actual trial, since the February 1873 Fraser's Magazine purported "account" of the trial and the Chenango Union's May 3, 1877 "account" of the trial disagree in several important points.  The Frazer's Magazine article was written by Charles Marshall and Daniel S. Tuttle, and Tuttle claimed that they derived their account from some pages taken from the judge's docket book by the judge's niece, Emily Pearsall.  The Chenango Union article was written by William D. Purple, who claimed to have generated his version of the trial from some notes and from memory, and he claimed to have been a friend of the judge who asked him to be the scribe at the trial.  (Purple also admitted to telling the story repeatedly over the more than forty years before he submitted his article to the paper).  The inconsistencies between these two accounts have been noted in a number of works, and neither one of the accounts can qualify as an official court document.

You may be aware of Marvin S. Hill's 1972 BYU Studies article on this topic:  Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial: New Evidence and New Difficulties (BYU Studies, Volume 12, Issue 2), and Dan Vogel's later article, Rethinking the 1826 Judicial Decision (to give two different views).

The Joseph Smith Papers site has published "lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not" related to this legal issue in this link:  State of New York v. JS–A, Chenango Co., NY, Justice of the Peace Court, 20 March 1826.  Part of the article summarizes the "trial" accounts as follows:

Quote

Given the lack of an 1826 document definitively reporting the verdict, the outcome of the case necessarily remains elusive. Two early descriptions of the trial, written by individuals who evidently were not present during the proceedings, indicate that the court “condemned” JS but that he was subsequently allowed to escape.26   On the other hand, Oliver Cowdery , who likewise was not present at the hearing, reported in 1835 that the court “honorably acquitted” JS. 27  Whereas the published docket entry indicates that Neely found JS guilty, Purple’s reminiscence has the court discharging JS for lack of evidence. The itemized bill for Neely’s services in the published docket entry—assuming it accurately reflects the justice’s fees for his 1826 services—does not contain an entry for making a record of conviction, a document required by the 1825 justice of the peace manual. 28   There is also no evidence that JS was incarcerated in the bridewell in 1826. 29   While this strongly suggests that Neely did not convict JS, the lack of verifiable contemporary records renders tentative any conclusion about the case’s outcome.

So I wouldn't go so far as to make the claims you are making in your post (regarding the 1826 disorderly person charge).

Edited October 28, 2022 by InCognitus

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I read a recent article from this group in which a compellingly convincing case is made that Bushman twisted a statement made by Lucy Mack Smith in order to justify the oft made claim that the Smith’s were practitioners of folk magic. After carefully weighing the evidence, I’ve also concluded that Bushman is flat out wrong on his interpretation of mother Smith’s statement and that the LDS answers group is right on this particular issue of contention.

In fact, when one understands mother Smith’s statement in context she’s actually making the opposite point, i.e. that the Smith’s were hardworking people and most certainly not given to involvement in occult practices. The fact that Bushman could have gotten something so wrong because he wanted to push the notion that the Smith’s were largely indolent practitioners of folk magic has caused me to wonder if I should view the rest of his work with skepticism. I also find it interesting that Bushman’s work is often lauded by critical former members and unbelievers.

 

Wow, what an article:

https://ldsanswers.org/did-joseph-smiths-mother-lucy-mack-smith-say-her-family-practiced-abrac-magic-circles-soothsaying-rough-stone-rolling-debunked/

The last paragraph in there was like a Communist Chinese parade of red flags where someone screwed up and ordered twice as many flags as are needed and a plane with a cargo of red flags accidentally dropped their load on top of the parade. The brave President Benson fights a secret war with those filthy progressives over Church history. We sure do have a lot of itching ears willing to believe any conspiracy theory don’t we?

[Chum]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The last paragraph in there was like a Communist Chinese parade of red flags where someone screwed up and ordered twice as many flags as are needed and a plane with a cargo of red flags accidentally dropped their load on top of the parade. The brave President Benson fights a secret war with those filthy progressives over Church history. We sure do have a lot of itching ears willing to believe any conspiracy theory don’t we?

You have to admit, the imagined conspiracy responsible for the imagined loss would seem silly without the imagined war.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Chum said:

You have to admit, the imagined conspiracy responsible for the imagined loss would seem silly without the imagined war.

Just add in that Leonard Arrington is a pedophile that sacrifices babies in secret ceremonies and we can be a welding link between Pizzagate and the Satanic panic.

[Chum]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Just add in that Leonard Arrington is a pedophile that sacrifices babies in secret ceremonies and we can be a welding link between Pizzagate and the Satanic panic.

Anyone can find this out for themselves. Just backmask the Book of Mormon.

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, Chum said:

Anyone can find this out for themselves. Just backmask the Book of Mormon.

Huh.  That's strange.  I just tried that, but I got a different result.   It said "I buried Paul".

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Huh.  That's strange.  I just tried that, but I got a different result.   It said "I buried Paul".

That's the Witness Testimony. You have to start at the back. Also Paul was still alive and that's why it's a conspiracy.