Seer Stone In A Hat

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Above it looks like nothing but a big brown stone...

Right.  So the message here is that the power of God can be made manifest, even through a big brown stone.  I don't think it mattered what it was.  A stone. A teacup.  A piece of wood.  It didn't matter.  What mattered was that Joseph believed he could receive the word of God through it.  Later Joseph realized that he didn't need anything to receive revelation.  The stone was a crutch to help him focus until he understood this.  Same with the Nephite interpreters. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by ksfisher

[rjohnson7]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Right.  So the message here is that the power of God can be made manifest, even through a big brown stone.  I don't think it mattered what it was.  A stone. A teacup.  A piece of wood.  It didn't matter.  What mattered was that Joseph believe he could receive the word of God through it.  Later Joseph realized that he didn't need anything to receive revelation.  The stone was a crutch to help him focus until he understood this.  Same with the Nephite interpreters. 

Thx you for your post, much appreciated.   Now why didn't God just put a brown stone in with the gold plates, the urim and thummim, etc... what if JS had not found the stone in the well?  Are you saying God did not prepare the Gold Plate interpreters for the very reason to translate and by chance JS happen to find a stone when digging a well, which you think God prepared in advance and knew JS would find it.... strange story and strange theory. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by rjohnson7

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Thx you for your post, much appreciated.   Now why didn't God just put a brown stone in with the gold plates, the urim and thummim, etc... what if JS had not found the stone in the well?  Are you saying God did not prepare the Gold Plate interpreters for the very reason to translate and by chance JS happen to find a stone when digging a well, which you think God prepared in advance and knew JS would find it.... strange story and strange theory. 

I'm not sure what I think really matters.  You're pretty set in your thinking.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

They kept secret the different Vision JS had for reason I can only guess at... maybe the members were not ready for the confusion of which story was more true.   So I feel the Church maybe didn't lie but hid things... some would say that they lied.

I just asked you if you considered it lying to intentionally conceal "difficult" history because it wasn't viewed as helpful.

You answered, "yes".

Are you walking that back now?

40 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Chuckle, I have never accused the Church of intentionally lying

Again, you said that intentionally concealing difficult history would be considered lying.  I just posted 2 quotes from GA's who were condoning that very behavior.   

40 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

are you someone that feels that only what the General Authorities and Prophet and apostles is infallible? 

Heaven's no. 

40 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

...and am not trying to convert anyone to my particular beliefs about the history....

You have more or less stated that in an effort to preserve the faith and testimony of others, you are attempting damage control against "progressives" in the church who are perverting church history.  How do you intend to do that without attempting to convince others of your particular beliefs about history?  It seems to me that you are pushing a narrative that you think will save others from a faith crisis.  Am I wrong?

40 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I find it only interesting to see how others may excuse the seer stone, which our enemies claim was magic and part of the occult.... we have many progressives who love to teach the seer stone, the hat and money digging (Bushman) and others.   I have to laugh at some of the ridiculous claims.  

There are arguments around the "magic" claims etc. without ditching the seer stone all together.   Those "ridiculous claims" are official church history.  You are basically publicly "laughing" at the brethren for publishing it.     It's really not ridiculous.  It seems kind of ridiculous to reject what church historians, the brethren, and critics all seem to agree on in terms of history. 

 

 

 

[rjohnson7]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I just asked you if you considered it lying to intentionally conceal "difficult" history because it wasn't viewed as helpful.

You answered, "yes".

Are you walking that back now?

Again, you said that intentionally concealing difficult history would be considered lying.  I just posted 2 quotes from GA's who were condoning that very behavior.   

Heaven's no. 

You have more or less stated that in an effort to preserve the faith and testimony of others, you are attempting damage control against "progressives" in the church who are perverting church history.  How do you intend to do that without attempting to convince others of your particular beliefs about history?  It seems to me that you are pushing a narrative that you think will save others from a faith crisis.  Am I wrong?

There are arguments around the "magic" claims etc. without ditching the seer stone all together.   Those "ridiculous claims" are official church history.  You are basically publicly "laughing" at the brethren for publishing it.     It's really not ridiculous.  It seems kind of ridiculous to reject what church historians, the brethren, and critics all seem to agree on in terms of history. 

 

 

 

First of all this seems like a gotcha post. Second you did not answer my question I asked sometime ago.  You asked what am I going to do to defend against the progressives.   Good question, first to know what I can about those who are pushing The New Mormonism such as Bushman, Arrington, Quinn and many others.  Then why are they doing this and exposing them as the wolves in sheep clothing they are.   I also believe Jesus Christ is in control and all truths will eventually be shouted from the roof tops.  I'm a promoter and believe that the Second Coming is around the corner and we are in the bottom of last inning and we are up to bat.

 

You have any ideas you want to share?

[rjohnson7]

42 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure what I think really matters.  You're pretty set in your thinking.

No, I'm pretty set in revealing truth.... I can live with the seer stone in a hat theory.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

It's nothing but a brown rock, my question was, who named it a seer stone, was it because people gave JS the name of seer?  I have no idea and thought maybe you knew. 

 

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Above it looks like nothing but a big brown stone... we know that JS also had a single clear white stone, like the ones we all will receive when we are celestialized. 

That specific seer stone's provenance is (all taken from https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/note-on-seer-stone-images)

* Joseph Smith gave it to Oliver Cowdery

* After Oliver Cowdery's death, his wife (Elizabeth Cowdery) gave it to Phineas Young (her brother-in-law as he is married to her half-sister)

* Phineas Young gave it to his brother, Brigham Young

* After Brigham Young's death, his wife Zina Diantha Huntington Smith Young purchased it from the estate

* Zina Young donated it back to the church

The stone was stored in a pouch that Franklin D. Richards said was made by Emma.  David Whitmer said that the seer stone that Joseph Smith used was "strange oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone about the size of an egg, only more flat".

So, to the best of our knowledge, that is one of the seer stones that Joseph Smith had.

 

Brigham Young also declared that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng)

Quote

“I have Joseph[’]s 1st Seer Stone which I [h]ad from O[liver] C[owdery],” President Young acknowledged in 1853. There were others as well. “Joseph [h]ad 3 which Emma has,” he added, “2 small ones and 1 large one.”²⁹ Two years later, Brigham Young told a group of assembled Church leaders that “Oliver sent me Joseph’s first Seer stone, Oliver always kept it until he sent it to me.”³⁰

 

So you don't believe that stone is a seer stone?  Do you believe that Joseph Smith had any seer stones?  Was Brigham Young just lying about the fact that Joseph had multiple seer stones?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

I'm not here to me mocked, I have been nice and polite, I love the members of the Church and what I have so far found here is rudeness and judging of me... stop, please! 

I am not mocking you, I don’t have a clue why else he would keep it if it wasn’t a seer stone. I collect rocks, I use them as paperweights and just to look at.  Why would Joseph keep a stone around?  I can’t think of any other reasons.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Now why didn't God just put a brown stone in with the gold plates, the urim and thummim, etc...

Why didn’t God just put glowing stones on the shore where the brother of Jared built his barges?  Why did he have to ask the brother of Jared for his input on what to do for light?  Why didn’t he just do it all for him?  Doesn’t it seem that God often uses what we are already familiar with for his purposes? 

Plain ol’ rocks…imagine that!  
 

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

what if JS had not found the stone in the well?  Are you saying God did not prepare the Gold Plate interpreters for the very reason to translate and by chance JS happen to find a stone when digging a well, which you think God prepared in advance and knew JS would find it.... strange story and strange theory. 

???

Joseph believed in and practiced folk magic, including seer stones.  God did too.  God worked from the paradigm Joseph was familiar with.  Jesus did the same thing with the spit in the dirt - that was common folk magic practice of the time.

If you don’t think Joseph believed in or used seer stones, you’ll have to explain why Joseph didn’t take issue with Hiram Page using a seer stone.  Instead, he took issue with him receiving revelation for the church - not the method he used.  

You will also have to explain D&C 130:10, which states that we will all receive a single stone (not spectacles) in the Celestial kingdom which will act as a Urim and Thummin…   Hmmm…seer stones/folk magic in the D&C?   Is that all just extreme coincidence that it aligns with the history of Joseph’s practices and understanding of seer stones?

 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

First of all this seems like a gotcha post. Second you did not answer my question I asked sometime ago.  You asked what am I going to do to defend against the progressives.   Good question, first to know what I can about those who are pushing The New Mormonism such as Bushman, Arrington, Quinn and many others.  Then why are they doing this and exposing them as the wolves in sheep clothing they are.   I also believe Jesus Christ is in control and all truths will eventually be shouted from the roof tops.  I'm a promoter and believe that the Second Coming is around the corner and we are in the bottom of last inning and we are up to bat.

 

You have any ideas you want to share?

Not a gotcha.  Feel free to clarify.  That is what I am seeking.  You have stated conflicting things.

I told you why I won’t answer that question in this thread.  It is a derail.

I have only found one blogger online who talks about “New Mormonism”.  You make it sound like a coordinated organized movement.  Do you have any sources or definitions?  Objectives, etc?  I don’t know what you are talking about.

It is tragic that you are othering members like Bushman.  Terribly sad to see that kind of divisiveness.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by pogi

[Nevo]

Richard Bushman is one of the finest people I have ever met. A scholar of deep faith and integrity. Rjohnson7 has been lying about him non-stop in this thread, either out of abysmal ignorance or malice. Rjohnson7 claims to be "nice and polite" and to "love the members of the Church," but he has been bearing false witness against one of the best members of the Church from the moment he showed up. It's disgusting.

[rjohnson7]

27 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Richard Bushman is one of the finest people I have ever met. A scholar of deep faith and integrity. Rjohnson7 has been lying about him non-stop in this thread, either out of abysmal ignorance or malice. Rjohnson7 claims to be "nice and polite" and to "love the members of the Church," but he has been bearing false witness against one of the best members of the Church from the moment he showed up. It's disgusting.

 

28 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Richard Bushman is one of the finest people I have ever met. A scholar of deep faith and integrity. Rjohnson7 has been lying about him non-stop in this thread, either out of abysmal ignorance or malice. Rjohnson7 claims to be "nice and polite" and to "love the members of the Church," but he has been bearing false witness against one of the best members of the Church from the moment he showed up. It's disgusting.

Bill Reel recently published a podcast interview with Richard Bushman.  I wonder if you know who Bill Real is?   Richard Bushman on New Mormon History:  

Quote

 

Richard Bushman:  “I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative.  The dominant narrative is not true;  it can’t be sustained.  The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do, and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially.  But I think it has to change.”

 

"The downside of that is that there is developing in the scholarly world a view of church history. It’s out of kilter with the church version, what’s told in Sunday school class. All sorts of things that don’t fit together such as the seer stones in the hat, or many, many other things.

That was a very dangerous situation because there came a time when the stuff is collected, it’s made available online. And people trying to prepare a Relief Society lesson would go online to try to collect some information get suddenly hit with this counter story that they’ve never heard before, that was authenticated, it’s got footnotes behind it, it’s got authority behind it. Not only do you have this disjuncture, things are not fitting anymore, but a question of Why wasn’t I told this before? A sense of betrayal and even rage, anger, and this somewhat illogical but understandable view, they’ve been lying to you all along. As if the church authorities knew it all and they were just concealing it.

There was a little bit of that. They did hide Mountain Meadows for a while. But on the whole the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history. So it’s put us in this difficult position where we are being asked to change very rapidly to a new construct of our own history and it’s put a lot of strain on a lot of people. It’s quite amazing how over the last few years the church is formally and informally trying to adjust to that, with all these gospel topic stories that deal with the difficult issues all being assimilated in the church curriculum and Elder Ballard saying we all have to learn this material, we have to be ready, our kids have to learn it. We don’t want any more surprises.

 So the big question in my mind with all these things we’ve being doing, you’ve got that, you’ve got all these books that are coming out, Terryl Givens book Principles of God [?] and Patrick Masons book, Laura Hales has a new book out on the reasoning about our church history. With all these things that are happening and groups like this, will we actually be able to instruct the rising generation of Latter Day Saints? I would say those who are say 12 or 13, sufficiently so that there will be no surprises. There may be issues and problems — this doesn’t solve the problem of gay marriage — but it’s attempting to deal with the problems of historical incongruities and are we going to be successful in [unintelligible] that along so there will no longer be that shock or that anger, that they had been cheated on, that they haven’t been told the whole story. So I may not live long enough to see that happening but everyone else in the room will [laughter] attest that.

 I think for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true. It can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds, and that’s what it’s trying to do. And they’ll be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. Elder Packer had the sense of “protecting the little people.” He felt like the scholars were an enemy to his faith, and that of the grandmothers living in Sanpete County. That was a very lovely pastoral image. But the price of protecting the grandmothers was the loss of the grandsons. They got a story that didn’t work. So we’ve just had to change our narrative."

"When I arrived in Cambridge (Mass.), the mission president, a professor of agriculture from Utah State [University] and so wise, asked, “Do you have a testimony?” I said, “No, I’m not sure I believe in God.” But he didn’t send me home.
He said, “Would you read this book and tell me what you think of it?” He handed me a Book of Mormon and sent me on the train to Halifax, which took 20 hours to get there from Boston. I spent the next three months asking every question I could about the Book of Mormon witnesses — Were they deceived? Were they hypnotized? Were they in on the game? After that three months, the mission president came up and asked us to bear our testimonies and, when he came to me, I just said, “I know the Book of Mormon is right.” I was prepared to commit myself, which I did, and never wavered from that. But I have had continual questions ever since. They’ve never gone away."

Bushman.  

Driving Members Away: Bushman

I have been told that we should never discuss our true and complete history and doctrine at church.  It can cause people to lose their testimonies.

What a weird thing to say!  So, it’s better to hide the truth so that a person will continue to believe the “truth” that’s really not true?  I know that there are adults in the church who want to be treated this way.  Not this adult.  In fact, most adults would say this is not adult behavior.  “When I became a man, I put away childish things.”

I now see the other side.  Not discussing our complete history and doctrine at church is causing members to lose their testimony.  It has driven my friends right out of the LDS church. The church whose “dominant narrative is not true.”

Teaching and embracing falsehood is not good…at least, not in my neighborhood.  My church is good, it’s time to get better.

 

 

 

 

 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not a gotcha.  Feel free to clarify.  That is what I am seeking.  You have stated conflicting things.

I told you why I won’t answer that question in this thread.  It is a derail.

I have only found one blogger online who talks about “New Mormonism”.  You make it sound like a coordinated organized movement.  Do you have any sources or definitions?  Objectives, etc?  I don’t know what you are talking about.

It is tragic that you are othering members like Bushman.  Terribly sad to see that kind of divisiveness.

 

Maybe this is not the right discussion for you... I'm not prone to being the only one who answers questions.  You declined for reasons of derailment... sorry you feel that way but I will not be interested in any more conversations with one who only asks and never gives... But bless you anyway and hope you continue to stay on the Covenant Path and enjoy the Blessing of the Lord... peace. 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Why didn’t God just put glowing stones on the shore where the brother of Jared built his barges?  Why did he have to ask the brother of Jared for his input on what to do for light?  Why didn’t he just do it all for him?  Doesn’t it seem that God often uses what we are already familiar with for his purposes? 

Plain ol’ rocks…imagine that!  

 

God (Jesus Christ) touched them which is to me preparing them for a righteous use... same with the Urim and Thummim, God prepared them for translation.... Rock? never heard that God prepared them for anything. 

 

???

Joseph believed in and practiced folk magic, including seer stones.  God did too.  God worked from the paradigm Joseph was familiar with.  Jesus did the same thing with the spit in the dirt - that was common folk magic practice of the time.

Exodus 22:18 reads, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Leviticus 19:31 reads, “Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God” while Leviticus 20:6 reads, “And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go ...

 

 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If you don’t think Joseph believed in or used seer stones, you’ll have to explain why Joseph didn’t take issue with Hiram Page using a seer stone.  Instead, he took issue with him receiving revelation for the church - not the method he used.  

You will also have to explain D&C 130:10, which states that we will all receive a single stone (not spectacles) in the Celestial kingdom which will act as a Urim and Thummin…   Hmmm…seer stones/folk magic in the D&C?   Is that all just extreme coincidence that it aligns with the history of Joseph’s practices and understanding of seer stones?

 

 

I guess you missed my other post where I talk about each of us receiving a white stone, JS also had one.... 

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

 

That specific seer stone's provenance is (all taken from https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/note-on-seer-stone-images)

* Joseph Smith gave it to Oliver Cowdery

* After Oliver Cowdery's death, his wife (Elizabeth Cowdery) gave it to Phineas Young (her brother-in-law as he is married to her half-sister)

* Phineas Young gave it to his brother, Brigham Young

* After Brigham Young's death, his wife Zina Diantha Huntington Smith Young purchased it from the estate

* Zina Young donated it back to the church

The stone was stored in a pouch that Franklin D. Richards said was made by Emma.  David Whitmer said that the seer stone that Joseph Smith used was "strange oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone about the size of an egg, only more flat".

So, to the best of our knowledge, that is one of the seer stones that Joseph Smith had.

 

Brigham Young also declared that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng)

 

So you don't believe that stone is a seer stone?  Do you believe that Joseph Smith had any seer stones?  Was Brigham Young just lying about the fact that Joseph had multiple seer stones?

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:10-11 (Apr 2, 1843) we read:

Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

The ‘new name’ is part of the temple ceremony, and has been since the Nauvoo period.  It is known that Joseph treasured his white seer stone.  Based on these references, it appears that he may have been intended to use it or similar stones as part of the temple ceremony. Shortly after Lyman Wight was endowment into the Quorum of the Anointed on May 14, 1844, Joseph Smith confirmed Wight’s mission to take a group of settlers to Texas.  As part of this ordination, Wight received a white (seer?) stone[13].   As Smith was killed prior to the Nauvoo temple being completed, his exact intentions regarding distribution of white seer stones may have been lost to history.

Later apostles taught that the Urim and Thummim would be used in temples in order to divine the names of past anscestors to allow temple work to be done for them[14].

Among these hidden things that are to be revealed are the books of genealogy, tracing individuals and nations among all people, back to ancient times.

It may be inquired—“How can all this be done?” We answer, by the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord God has ordained to be used in the midst of his holy house, in his Temple.

The Manti temple was dedicated in May 1888, and the “Urim and Thummim” (seer stone) was placed on the alter during the dedication[15].  The holy of holies was located in this temple until the completion of the Salt Lake temple in 1893 and may have housed a seer stones during that period.

[Nevo]

25 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 

Driving Members Away: Bushman

I have been told that we should never discuss our true and complete history and doctrine at church.  It can cause people to lose their testimonies.

What a weird thing to say!  So, it’s better to hide the truth so that a person will continue to believe the “truth” that’s really not true?  I know that there are adults in the church who want to be treated this way.  Not this adult.  In fact, most adults would say this is not adult behavior.  “When I became a man, I put away childish things.”

I now see the other side.  Not discussing our complete history and doctrine at church is causing members to lose their testimony.  It has driven my friends right out of the LDS church. The church whose “dominant narrative is not true.”

Teaching and embracing falsehood is not good…at least, not in my neighborhood.  My church is good, it’s time to get better.

 

This is Sam Young, not Richard Bushman. Good grief.

You care nothing for facts or truth.

[rjohnson7]

5 minutes ago, Nevo said:

This is Sam Young, not Richard Bushman. Good grief.

You care nothing for facts or truth.

Really, why are you being rude, the following is all Bushman

 

 

Richard Bushman on New Mormon History:  

  Quote

 

Richard Bushman:  “I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative.  The dominant narrative is not true;  it can’t be sustained.  The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do, and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially.  But I think it has to change.”

 

 

 

Expand  

"The downside of that is that there is developing in the scholarly world a view of church history. It’s out of kilter with the church version, what’s told in Sunday school class. All sorts of things that don’t fit together such as the seer stones in the hat, or many, many other things.

That was a very dangerous situation because there came a time when the stuff is collected, it’s made available online. And people trying to prepare a Relief Society lesson would go online to try to collect some information get suddenly hit with this counter story that they’ve never heard before, that was authenticated, it’s got footnotes behind it, it’s got authority behind it. Not only do you have this disjuncture, things are not fitting anymore, but a question of Why wasn’t I told this before? A sense of betrayal and even rage, anger, and this somewhat illogical but understandable view, they’ve been lying to you all along. As if the church authorities knew it all and they were just concealing it.

There was a little bit of that. They did hide Mountain Meadows for a while. But on the whole the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history. So it’s put us in this difficult position where we are being asked to change very rapidly to a new construct of our own history and it’s put a lot of strain on a lot of people. It’s quite amazing how over the last few years the church is formally and informally trying to adjust to that, with all these gospel topic stories that deal with the difficult issues all being assimilated in the church curriculum and Elder Ballard saying we all have to learn this material, we have to be ready, our kids have to learn it. We don’t want any more surprises.

 So the big question in my mind with all these things we’ve being doing, you’ve got that, you’ve got all these books that are coming out, Terryl Givens book Principles of God [?] and Patrick Masons book, Laura Hales has a new book out on the reasoning about our church history. With all these things that are happening and groups like this, will we actually be able to instruct the rising generation of Latter Day Saints? I would say those who are say 12 or 13, sufficiently so that there will be no surprises. There may be issues and problems — this doesn’t solve the problem of gay marriage — but it’s attempting to deal with the problems of historical incongruities and are we going to be successful in [unintelligible] that along so there will no longer be that shock or that anger, that they had been cheated on, that they haven’t been told the whole story. So I may not live long enough to see that happening but everyone else in the room will [laughter] attest that.

 I think for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true. It can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds, and that’s what it’s trying to do. And they’ll be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. Elder Packer had the sense of “protecting the little people.” He felt like the scholars were an enemy to his faith, and that of the grandmothers living in Sanpete County. That was a very lovely pastoral image. But the price of protecting the grandmothers was the loss of the grandsons. They got a story that didn’t work. So we’ve just had to change our narrative."

"When I arrived in Cambridge (Mass.), the mission president, a professor of agriculture from Utah State [University] and so wise, asked, “Do you have a testimony?” I said, “No, I’m not sure I believe in God.” But he didn’t send me home.
He said, “Would you read this book and tell me what you think of it?” He handed me a Book of Mormon and sent me on the train to Halifax, which took 20 hours to get there from Boston. I spent the next three months asking every question I could about the Book of Mormon witnesses — Were they deceived? Were they hypnotized? Were they in on the game? After that three months, the mission president came up and asked us to bear our testimonies and, when he came to me, I just said, “I know the Book of Mormon is right.” I was prepared to commit myself, which I did, and never wavered from that. But I have had continual questions ever since. They’ve never gone away."

Bushman.  

Driving Members Away: Bushman

I have been told that we should never discuss our true and complete history and doctrine at church.  It can cause people to lose their testimonies.

What a weird thing to say!  So, it’s better to hide the truth so that a person will continue to believe the “truth” that’s really not true?  I know that there are adults in the church who want to be treated this way.  Not this adult.  In fact, most adults would say this is not adult behavior.  “When I became a man, I put away childish things.”

I now see the other side.  Not discussing our complete history and doctrine at church is causing members to lose their testimony.  It has driven my friends right out of the LDS church. The church whose “dominant narrative is not true.”

Teaching and embracing falsehood is not good…at least, not in my neighborhood.  My church is good, it’s time to get better.

 

 

 

 

 

-1

•  
•  
• Quote

 

[Nevo]

8 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Really, why are you being rude, the following is all Bushman

No, it's not "all Bushman." Your last quote is from Sam Young, who is not Richard Bushman.

The first quote is from a surreptitiously recorded private fireside, in which Bushman says stuff that's true. The second quote is cherry-picked from an interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack in which Bushman admits to having "questions" that "have never gone away" while affirming that he has "never wavered" in his commitment since the 1950s. 

Nothing you've quoted backs up your slander that Bushman is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Really, why are you being rude, the following is all Bushman

Why haven’t you provided a link to where you got this quote?  Some may be confused thinking it’s a transcript of the Bill Reel podcast instead of a Faith Again meeting from 2016.  
 

Link won’t work, so posting Bushman’s response to the “kerfuffle”:

Quote

In the middle of the week last week I began to receive thank you notes from people who had read a statement of mine about the Church’s historical narrative requiring reconstruction. I had no idea what was going on until Dan Peterson wrote about a “kerfuffle”—the word of choice for the occasion—on the blogs. At church on Sunday, D. Fletcher asked me, did you know you were the subject of a kerfuffle. A friend who had been mission president in Brazil sent me a link to a blog in Portugese. Eventually I learned it all began with the transcript of a comment I made at a fireside at Mark England’s house a little over a month ago and posted by John Dehlin.

Sampling a few of the comments on Dan Peterson’s blog I discovered that some people thought I had thrown in the towel and finally admitted the Church’s story of its divine origins did not hold up. Others read my words differently; I was only saying that there were many errors in the standard narrative that required correction.

The reactions should not have surprised me. People have had different takes on Rough Stone Rolling ever since it came out. Some found the information about Joseph Smith so damning his prophethood was thrown into question. Others were grateful to find a prophet who had human flaws, giving them hope they themselves could qualify for inspiration despite their human weaknesses. The same facts; opposite reactions.

The different responses mystify me. I have no idea why some people are thrown for a loop when they learn church history did not occur as they had been taught in Sunday School, while others roll with the punches. Some feel angry and betrayed; others are pleased to have a more realistic account. One theorist has postulated an “emotional over-ride” that affects how we respond to information. But the admission that we ourselves are subjective human beings whose rational mechanisms are not entirely trustworthy does not diminish our sense that we are right and our counterparts mistaken.

As it is, I still come down on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations—while others viewing the same facts are convinced they disqualify Joseph Smith entirely. A lot of pain, anger, and alienation come out of these disputes. I wish we could find ways to be more generous and understanding with one another.

Richard Bushman

https://www.Mormon*******.***/podcast/richard-bushman-reaffirms-his-testimony-of-angels-plates-translations-revelations/

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Really, why are you being rude, the following is all Bushman

 

You need to look at the name attached to those words.  He quoted Bushman and then added his own comments.  From Nevo’s link:

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I think Mike is stringing us along.

[Calm]

Neville has come on the board promoting his own material under sock puppets, more likely him, imo, but I think Johnson is who he says he is.  I also think he should put more effort into how he does and presents research and I am clueless as to why he thinks Neville’s stuff is credible given all the problems with it.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

45 minutes ago, Nevo said:

No, it's not "all Bushman." Your last quote is from Sam Young, who is not Richard Bushman.

The first quote is from a surreptitiously recorded private fireside, in which Bushman says stuff that's true. The second quote is cherry-picked from an interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack in which Bushman admits to having "questions" that "have never gone away" while affirming that he has "never wavered" in his commitment since the 1950s. 

Nothing you've quoted backs up your slander that Bushman is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

He backpedaled on a video John Dehlin made where Bushman made a damaging claim and then retreated from ever 

saying it.... I will find the video for you or the quote,  

[rjohnson7]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Neville has come on the board promoting his own material under sock puppets, more likely him, imo, but I think Johnson is who he says he is.  I also think he should put more effort into how he does and presents research and I am clueless as to why he thinks Neville’s stuff is credible given all the problems with it.

I never believed the seer stone in a hat transition before any controversy even started.  Did you read his book?

[rjohnson7]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think Mike is stringing us along.

Who is Mike?