AMA Series: Richard Bushman - Dec 16, 3:00 - 4:00 PM EST. (self.exmormon)
12/16/2013 - 5:10 EST: Alright, it looks like the AMA is closed. I want to thank Richard for participating and thank you all for your comments.
Sorry to have passed over so many of questions. As you can see I was swamped. The ones I chose to answer were a rather arbitrary selection. I wrote if something popped into my mind that I wanted to say.
I appreciate the tone of the questions. I know there are strong feelings under the surface in many instances. Giving up your religion can roil the waters. But the emotions were admirably restrained in this exchange. I rarely felt hostility or anger in what was asked. That is vital for civil discourse; giving answers is hard enough without having to ward off attacks.
I am pleased there are places where you can talk through your questions. I actually enjoy being part of these conversations, but they do take up a lot of time. I am trying to finish a book on eighteenth-century farming that I laid aside twenty years ago to work on Joseph Smith. If I don't restrain myself, the book will never get completed.
I wish you all well in your pursuits. I hope you appreciate the benefits of having to struggle to know what you believe.
Richard
Edit 12/16/2013 - 3:15 EST: As Richard is new to Reddit, I'm going to be going through some of the posts to edit for readability (really just calling out the quotations). I will not be changing content, just formatting; and the edits are mine - not his. In the full sense of disclosure, I did change one reference to where he used my real name rather than account name. While I would love to come out publicly on the internet with my name and position, I do not want the same real-life harassment experienced by another mod. If you see anything off or have any questions, please PM me.
Edit 12/16/2013 - 9:30 EST: Update from Richard
Dear Forum Members:
I have read through the imposing array of questions posed over the past week and hardly know how to begin. They are pointed, relevant, sincere, and deserve more of a reply than I can possibly manage. I will do what I can during our open chat hour on Monday, but for now I would like to say something about my beliefs as I have been currently voicing them.A few weeks ago during one of the seminars that Terryl and Fiona Givens and I have been offering for people working through their doubts and questions, an old friend sat me down during the lunch break, looked me in the eye and asked, “Richard, do you believe Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in the grove?” I said of course and the moment passed, but his question lingered on and moved me to think again about what I do believe about the founding stories.
I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith's 1832 History account of his early visions. This is the one partially written in his own hand and the rest dictated to Frederick G. Williams. I think it is more revealing than the official account presumably written in 1838 and contained in the Pearl of Great Price. We don't know who wrote the 1838 account. Joseph's journal indicates that he, Sidney Rigdon, and George Robinson collaborated on beginning the history in late April, but we don't know who actually drafted the history. It is a polished narrative but unlike anything Joseph ever wrote himself. The 1832 history we know is his because of the handwriting. It comes rushing forth from Joseph's mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet's call, and I find it entirely believable..
I also believe the statements of the witnesses to the gold plates. A lot has been said about Martin Harris's talk of spiritual eyes. Did he really see the plates as we see each other or was it an imagined happening. I am not persuaded by the spiritual eyes argument. Elizabeth Mott wrote a paper on spiritual eyes for the summer seminar a few years ago. She pointed out that Harris and others were concerned about the biblical statements on seeing the divine. Many passages made it seem that a person would perish in the presence of God or holiness or even angels unless they were spiritually prepared beforehand. Looking back on his experience, Harris had to believe his eyes were made ready to view the divine. Charles Finney said something similar about his vision of Christ in his law chambers. Although it came to him as sensory experience, he afterwards had to say it had to have been mental or spiritual. The Bible almost compelled that understanding of experience. Speaking of spiritual eyes does not detract from the reality. I am inclined to accept the witness statements at face value. The strength of the testimonies, in my opinion, is also increased by the numbers. It was not just a single individual who said he saw them but eleven persons. That impresses me. Where do we have better attestation of a supernatural event?
I also believe Joseph Smith had access to Egyptian characters. The transcripts he prepared for Martin Harris to take to the linguists have a pretty firm provenance; Michael MacKay has found an 1831 version. The characters have also been analyzed by a linguist. When I was just a kid, the Boise attorney-scholar Ariel Crowley published three articles in The Improvement Era, January-March, 1842, that compared the transcript characters to Egyptian and found that every last one of them matched up. He published side-by-side pictures of all the characters and their Egyptian equivalents. The article impressed me at the time (I was 11) but Crowley ended by saying he had shown his work to an Egyptologist who had reservations. That troubled me a little. The article seemed entirely persuasive with all of its visual evidence; how could it be questioned? Years later I had a post-doctoral fellowship at Brown University which had one of the few Egyptology departments in the country. One day I went to see Richard Parker, the head man. When I opened the conversation by asking if he knew Mormons were interested in Egyptian, he said “of course.” (Later he was one to weigh in on the Book of Abraham .) I told Parker about the Crowley article and the caveat at the end. Can you help me understand what that could be? He said, he would be happy to. He was the one, he jubilantly announced, who had helped Crowley locate the characters that matched up with the transcript. What was his objection then? To answer he brought out two large books filled with squiggly characters and asked me to compare the two. In one, the characters are linked, I replied, in the other they stand alone. The linked characters, he told me, were authentic Egyptian. The stand-alone figures were Egyptian glyphs but not the Egyptian language. They were actually the Meroitic language written with Egyptian characters. My immediate response, of course, was to say that
the Book of Mormon explains itself as being Hebrew language written in Egyptian characters. What about that? Well, said he in an expansive way, were there not Egyptian scrolls circulating in upstate New York about that time? At that I stopped, figuring I had pushed my inquiry as far as I needed to. Since then, however, I have believed that Joseph Smith had access to Egyptian in 1828.
Those are little pieces, but they indicate how I feel about the founding events. I am also impressed by the Book of Mormon. It is riddled with nineteenth-century Protestant theology and phrasing, but still is an incredible narrative of a civilization's rise and fall. A few years ago in a class on contemporary Mormonism that Claudia and I were teaching at Columbia, one of the students asked me do you believe the Book of Mormon. I said that it was an incredibly complicated book that worked on many different levels. In my opinion, it was either a work of genius or inspired, and knowing what I do about Joseph Smith, I don't believe he was capable of writing it. I really don't know how the published text relates to the text on the plates, considering that Joseph did not look at the plates as he dictated the book. There are various ways of explaining that, but I do think the Book of Mormon is a marvelous creation and far beyond Joseph Smith's natural powers in 1829.
So what it comes down to is that I believe in the founding events. I think of them as the foundation of my faith. But they are the foundation, and I do not live in the cellar. I live in the rooms built on these events, the way of life, the attitudes, the institutions, the relationships, the experiences they support. This is what I meant when I spoke to Anselm Min, the Catholic theologian at Claremont Graduate School where Claudia and I taught for three years. Anselm took me to lunch soon after we arrived at Claremont and bluntly asked me how I could believe in Joseph Smith. My immediate response was that when I lived in the Mormon way I became the kind of man I wanted to be. Those words summed up a lot—my sense of having God's spirit when I needed it, the salutary discipline of Mormon life, the friendships and commonalities of a Mormon ward, the requirement of unselfish service, the valuation of family, the tempering of pride and fear—a host of things. Like many people, I wrestle with demons. I frequently feel inadequate to my responsibilities. At the same time, I know I can be better, and when I live the Mormon way, I am lifted up. I see things more clearly. I can figure out how I really feel. I know how to relate to my wife and children and colleagues. I am temperate, incisive, generous, and focused. On bad days, Claudia and I often say we are out of sync with the universe. Over the many years I have been in the Church, I find that following the Mormon path puts me back in sync. I don't use the word “know” a lot, but I do know I am a better person for being a Mormon.
The Richard Bushman AMA is now officially up for questions.
You can read about Richard Bushman here.
More information on his book Rough Stone Rolling can be found here.
John Dehlin's interview of Richard can be found here.
Protocol and timing: This AMA will be run in much the same format as the Tanya Wilson AMA. Questions will be posted here, and Richard has committed to drop by on Dec 16th, between 3:00 and 4:00 PM to answer as many questions as he is able.
Just a friendly reminder on the policies. Personal attacks are not allowed in any way. This really hasn't been a problem with these series, and I would love for us to continue that trend. Also note that as Richard is a practicing member, I ask that you use appropriate language. Again, this hasn't been a problem yet, but I want to add it just in case.
Richard, when I was first introduced to the troubling history, I was introduced to your book and to your testimony here Link is here., and what struck me were a few things that you said and also in this video Link is here.... that indicated to me that perhaps your inquiry was not done with the intent to authenticate the claims or to actually examine the history critically.
For example, you said...
“My answers to my own questions are partially philosophical but mostly practical.”
“In my case, the interrogation all goes on under an umbrella of faith. I am looking to support what I know in my heart is good and true.” When I read this, I interpret your words of “under the umbrella of faith” to equal “not a critical examination” and supporting what your “heart says is true” to equal “proactive confirmation bias”.
In this video interview Link is here.... you say some interesting things such as, “and so the purpose of history is not to find out what really happened, but to sort of collect what the set of human observers describe what they think happened”. I believe you called it the “Hermeneutics of Trust”
So it appears that in doing your work, you have not sought to examine the situation critically for authenticity. You were simply engaged in a work with the purpose of proving Joseph's point of view as authentic, despite mounds of problematic issues.
So my questions are - very seriously, do you feel like perhaps you were overly influenced to take this non-critical approach to history by your closeness with the leaders of the church and the priesthood blessing you received under the hands of Boyd K. Packer before writing your book? Did you feel unduly influenced to make the book a work of faith in Joseph?
And do you believe that others should be justified in taking a critical approach to the life of Joseph Smith and history of the church as most historians, journalists and lawyers would? Should their works be placed side by side with yours as authentic and realistic world views to maintain regarding the prophet and the history of the church?
Since there are so many questions on deck in the forum today, I am going to work my way down the line answering the ones about which I have something to say. Many others deserve more attention than I will give them, but I will do the best I can. A few of the questions inquire about what I truly believe. I wrote up a brief statement a few days ago which Curious_Mormon* has posted under my account. Some of you may find at least partial answers there.
I have headed each response with the portion of the question to which I was focusing on.
Question: So it appears that in doing your work, you have not sought to examine the situation critically for authenticity. You were simply engaged in a work with the purpose of proving Joseph's point of view as authentic, despite mounds of problematic issues.
So my questions are - very seriously, do you feel like perhaps you were overly influenced to take this non-critical approach to history by your closeness with the leaders of the church and the priesthood blessing you received under the hands of Boyd K. Packer before writing your book? Did you feel unduly influenced to make the book a work of faith in Joseph?
And do you believe that others should be justified in taking a critical approach to the life of Joseph Smith and history of the church as most historians, journalists and lawyers would? Should their works be placed side by side with yours as authentic and realistic world views to maintain regarding the prophet and the history of the church?
Answer: The question has to do with my approach to Joseph Smith in RSR and asks if my purpose was to prove Joseph Smith authentic. I did not have that question in mind as I began. If you reverse the question you may see what I mean. Would you say other historians might begin their study of Joseph Smith to prove he was a false prophet or inauthentic? Perhaps some set out with a purpose like that in mind—Fawn Brodie perhaps? But I don't think many professionals set as their goal to determine if Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Most begin with a desire to understand the person they are writing about and portray him as accurately as they can. In my case, I wanted to understand how Joseph Smith understood himself, just as I would do if I were writing about Mohammed or Gandhi. Since I am a professional historian and knew the book would be reviewed by my colleagues I knew I had to confront all of the evidence, negative and positive. Some things may have been left out but not because I was trying to duck problems. My intention was to deal with everything. I did leave out a discussion of Smith's young wives, an omission I regret, but that was inadvertent. None of the professional reviews that I can recall criticized me for neglecting negative evidence.
I must add that my approach was empathetic, that is, I tried to understand the world as Joseph Smith saw it. But that is my approach to everyone I write about. I try to get inside my subject's minds. That is the kind of history I like to read and choose to write.
Can we read your thoughts on Joseph Smith's young wives somewhere else? Interested in hearing what you have to say.
Dr. Bushman,
Thank you for doing this AMA. Your honesty and openness are a breath of fresh air when it comes to Mormon history and I applaud you for not being afraid to talk about it.
I attended a fireside you did recently. I have a few follow-ups to some of the Q&A you did there. I hope you will understand these questions in the spirit in which they are written, which is a sincere quest for the truth. I apologize if I come across any other way.
Could you elaborate on what the exchange was between you and the professor you spoke with? Seeing as the professor you spoke to agreed that it was Egyptian, was he/she able to render a translation of any of the characters?
Here is the response I got:
The symbols are not a coherent form of the Egyptian script during any of its stages. Among the squiggles, however, there are random signs that could be Egyptian for the simple reason that the wide range of hieratic signs (cursive hieroglyphs) includes many, many signs (including simple straight lines), so it is always possible to “fantasize” seeing Egyptian in disconnected bits. I've “seen” Egyptian Demotic writing in table top designs at the James Coney Island hot dog restaurants in Houston, but that doesn't mean that the “similarities” are more than simple coincidence. One might see Demotic writing in clouds or thin ink blots. You will see that the “Caractors” include a number of repeats that are certainly not Egyptian (series of strokes over a horizontal line, deformed English letters H, T, A, etc.). There never was a “reformed Egyptian” script, and the Brown professor might have noted a few vaguely signs, but as I've stated that is not proof of a true script.
Question: In your testimony at the fireside, you said that you believe in Joseph Smith because when you live the Mormon way, you are the man you want to be. I'm curious if, in your quest for truth, you have tried living the teachings of a church that doesn't believe in Joseph Smith. Would you concede that it is possible that there is another religion that might make you an even better man? If a man were to say that he believes in Richard Dawkins because living the atheist way makes him the man he wants to be, would you accept that as valid, or is he missing something?
Answer: I have not tried living by the tenets of any other religion and acknowledge I might very well benefit by some other religious discipline. From all I can tell, religions of all kinds help people to live well. But I am not about to give up my religion to try out others when mine serves me so well. It is one important reason why I hang on to Mormonism. An article in the New York Times yesterday reported research that found people with faith are happier than those without. What would you do if your mind told you there is no God but living as an atheist made you miserable. That is a tough spot to find yourself in. I am grateful that what I believe to be true also helps me to live a satisfying life.
“You mentioned in the fireside that Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages probably did not involve sexual relations.”
As an add-on to that, is there any evidence to suggest that they were not sexual in nature? Isn't the default assumption for any marriage that there are relations? Certainly there were (I am a product of one from generations back) with the vast majority of other plural marriages within Church history.
Question: You mentioned in the fireside that Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages probably did not involve sexual relations.
As an add-on to that, is there any evidence to suggest that they were not sexual in nature? Isn't the default assumption for any marriage that there are relations?
Answer: The whole business of sex in Joseph Smith's plural marriages is hard to deal with because of the reluctance of the participants to talk about such things. The main reason we know about sex at all is because some of Joseph Smith's sons, then affiliated with the Reorganized Church, came to Utah to interview his plural wives. The Smith brothers' aim was to prove the marriages were purely spiritual in nature. Brigham Young asked these women for statements saying conjugal relations were included. But not all testified to that effect, and so the question is left in limbo. Much later people began to claim certain children were offspring of Joseph Smith but the DNA testing does not bear out this conclusion. (They have tested the claimed female children, but not the men.) Considering the unconventional nature of these marriages and Joseph Smith's very complicated life in these years, I don't think it is safe to assume sex was always involved.
I think you mean they tested the male children but not the female.
Rather that today's DNA technology is not adequately sufficient to conclusively determine whether females were his offspring. They did test Josephine and look at it using a Autosomal DNA Approach but are unable to draw solid conclusions. Ugo Perego: “It is possible that this paternity case may never be fully resolved by means of genetic testing.”
Then what was the purpose of polygamy?!?!?! Show me the doctrinal justification for polygamy that did not involve reproduction or virgins. Joseph violated both known doctrinal justifications for polygamy by marrying other men's wives and by not reproducing. Why then did he enter into polygamy and why did those who followed in his footsteps feel justified in having sex and reproducing if they hadn't been taught by him that that was the way it was to be practiced? Your speculation has no factual basis. This is pure speculation on your part and it's laughable at best. It's undoctrinal and it's un-realistic. Two Strikes. You're out.
And as a follow-up to that last question about fraternal connections (some call it “dynastic”) - if it was so important to have dynastic polygamy at that time, why did the practice cease and why was it never taught as doctrine, scripture, sermon or otherwise and why is there no such thing as it today?
If it was a principle of the restoration to have dynastic marriages then they should have been taught and understood as such by members today, and even a continuing part of the restored gospel and temple work, would you agree? Helen Mar Kimball felt very distraught over this situation, not being able to go out dancing with other kids her age. I think this is asking a lot of a dynastic marriage...
Please explain why you would assume such an unorthodox view of what was happening when all of the rest of those who praticed polygamy engaged in sexual relations and therefore Occam's Razor clearly suggests these marriages involved sexual relations for the sake of consistency of the principle of polygamy throughout the restoration. Why the double standard?
It appears that this is just an elaborate and embellished narrative to give Joseph Plausible deniability for having sex with under-age women and polyandrous women. If it was so common to marry young back then - why is there such a fear to just admit that he absolutely must have had sex with them or he was violating the reason for polygamy in the first place as stated in Jacob - to raise seed. You can't raise seed without having sex, right?
Please explain how you have arrived at this conclusion because it flies in the face of every sound principle of doctrine on this topic. I am a descendent of Wilford Woodruff and he clearly had sex with all of his wives or I would not be in existence. Can we move past the cover-ups and just play this straight?
You say you believe the first witness statements. What do you make of Martin Harris's reluctant confession?
“I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it loth (sic) to give it up – but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell in heap of ruins.” (Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 – February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives.).
"I answer emphatically, No, I did not;—no man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates; nor the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, under the administration of Joseph Smith Jun., the prophet whom the Lord raised up for that purpose, in these the latter days, that he may show forth his power and glory. The Lord has shown me these things by his Spirit—by the administration of holy angels—and confirmed the same with signs following, step by step, as the work has progressed, for the space of fifty-three years." ~Martin Harris
"Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates." ~Martin Harris
Martin Harris is describing an explicitly spiritual experience in your first quote - “the administration of the angel that showed me the plates” and the second quote “as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.” Joseph Smith had something, said to be physical plates, under a tablecloth, hidden in a barn, in the woods, carried under a coat. Martin Harris never says that he saw these physical plates that Joseph was supposed to have. This accords with the Lyman Johnson statement that “he [Martin Harris] never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination.” Those plates that Joseph Smith had? Martin Harris never saw them; and, according to Harris, no one else did either.
"do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates."
But individuals left the church based on Martin Harris' statements in the Kirtland Temple. Or are you arguing that all exmormons lied, while Martin Harris never went back on anything he said:
Phineas H. Young told Brigham Young that Harris's testimony of Shakerism was “greater than it was of the Book of Mormon.” Letter of Phineas H. Young to Brigham Young, Dec. 31, 1844.
Or maybe we shouldn't trust Phineas and Brigham... and Martin is trustworthy after all?
As I said in the linked thread:
"When you look at the myriad statements made by Martin Harris confirming the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the gold plates, a far more reasonable explanation is that Martin Harris expressed regret for how he had portrayed his experience, and clarified that the plates were physical and that he had held them, but emphasized (as he had done many, many times) that his witness was a spiritual experience."
and as Parachute woman points out, you take one statement as the truth, and discard the what, 6-8 statements by others claiming he did deny it. And they altered their whole lives based on that statement he's saying he didn't make.
Methinks you, at very least, are playing it down pretty heavily with language like “Not this again” as opposed to “This is a complicated issue, I can see how you disbelieve based on evidence and statements. I hold to my beliefs based on this statement.”
Please don't push other people's beliefs down for being simple. or “Eye-rolling” worthy when many of us are very well versed in both sides and do not come to the same conclusion as you.
you take one statement as the truth, and discard the what, 6-8 statements by others claiming he did deny it
I'm assuming that you are aware of the many statements by Martin Harris and others that he did see and touch the plates physically, and that you are instead choosing to ignore them (or downplay them) in favor of this particular interpretation. If this is inaccurate, let me know.
Rather than re-hash the many statements in support of Harris physically seeing and handling the plates, which I can only assume you are aware of and discounting, let's discuss these “6-8 statements by others claiming he did deny it.”
Please provide sources for these “6-8 statements”, and we can discuss them specifically.
In that link you provided. I'm not arguing there were not plates, but whether anyone saw gold. So far I see no statements that they actually saw gold outside “eye of faith” comments.
In that link you provided.
What? Are you saying the “6-8 statements by others claiming he did deny it” are in the link I provided? I'm just asking for a source for these supposed statements.
So far I see no statements that they actually saw gold outside “eye of faith” comments.
None? Not even one?
Nope. And I've looked. The statements that they held the plates or rustled them are from tales of early on in the Joseph obtaining the plates. The stories of the angels showing the plates or the eight are the ones couched in “visionary language”. Anyone who “sees the gold” uses the visionary... angels showing it. Those who feel it under a cloth give weight, measurement and earthly descriptions.
I believe there were plates of a sort, but not gold.
continue this thread (this will take you to reddit to continue following the discussion)
He and the others held the model plates (under cloth, lr otherwise obscured) that Joseph Smith fabricated and “saw” the plates in vision only. The statements are deceptively written, but they weren't dishonest men, for the most part. They left clues.
The statements are deceptively written, but they weren't dishonest men, for the most part. They left clues.
I don't even know what to make of this. Are you saying that all their statements in support of the plates, angels, etc. aren't really supportive, but instead have hidden meanings that hint at their con?
“and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands” - this was done with the mock-up that Smith made; it actually happened.
“and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.” -- This was a visionary experience.
Using this gloss, we can make sense of the witnesses later descriptions of the plates.
Here's David Whitmer's (as summarized by Wikipedia)
Recounting the vision to Orson Pratt in 1878, Whitmer claimed to have seen not only the Golden Plates but the “Brass Plates, the plates containing the record of the wickedness of the people of the world....the sword of Laban, the Directors (i.e. the ball which Lehi had) and the Interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed....”[48] On other occasions, Whitmer's vision of the plates seemed far less corporeal. When asked in 1880 for a description of the angel who showed him the plates, Whitmer replied that the angel “had no appearance or shape.” Asked by the interviewer how he then could bear testimony that he had seen and heard an angel, Whitmer replied, “Have you never had impressions?” To which the interviewer responded, “Then you had impressions as the Quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?” “Just so,” replied Whitmer.[49] A young Mormon lawyer, James Henry Moyle, who interviewed Whitmer in 1885, asked if there was any possibility that Whitmer had been deceived. “His answer was unequivocal....that he saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakable clearness.” But Moyle went away “not fully satisfied....It was more spiritual than I anticipated.”[50]
John Whitmer said:
...all I know, you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.” Whitmer replied “I now say I handled those plates. there was fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.” and he described how they were hung and they were shown to me by a supernatural power. he acknowledged all. Turley asked him why the translation is not now true, & he said “I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.[3]
He handled something for real, but he only saw them through a supernatural power.
And so they go.
For reference, the eight witness statement is reproduced below.
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
So, yeah, the con was that they didn't really see anything, and, as Martin Harris told us, knew their statements equating seeing (which they only did in vision) and feeling (which they did in real life) the plates, which sounded equal, were really deceptive.
“and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands” - this was done with the mock-up that Smith made; it actually happened. “and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.” -- This was a visionary experience.
Slow down. What is your criteria in distinguishing which statements are visionary and which are literal?
Martin Harris's remark that none fo them saw the plates, the many statements that describe seeing the plates as a visionary experience, the eyewitness reports of something under a tablecloth, etc., and the structure of the sentences in the documents. My hypothesis fits the data pretty darn well.
No, not really. You're ignoring all the statements that pretty explicitly state they saw them and it was a real experience.
You've basically stated that when they saw the plates, it was visionary, and when they touched them it was real. Are you seriously contending that when they felt them they couldn't see them, and when they saw them they couldn't touch them?
The two statements of Martin Harris that you used as rebuttal both describe visionary experiences. Here's my previous comment -
Martin Harris is describing an explicitly spiritual experience in your first quote - “the administration of the angel that showed me the plates” and the second quote “as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.” Joseph Smith had something, said to be physical plates, under a tablecloth, hidden in a barn, in the woods, carried under a coat. Martin Harris never says that he saw these physical plates that Joseph was supposed to have. This accords with the Lyman Johnson statement that “he [Martin Harris] never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination.” Those plates that Joseph Smith had? Martin Harris never saw them; and, according to Harris, no one else did either.
If the plates were real then Martin Harris could have seen them without the help of an angel. If the plates were real, Martin Harris would not have embedded his experience of seeing them within the context of an angelic vision.
If the plates were real then Martin Harris could have seen them without the help of an angel.
This presupposes a worldview devoid of angels and spiritual experiences in the first place. I will readily admit to anyone that if there is no such thing as angels or God, the whole thing is a heaping pile of trash. But that's obvious, isn't it? You can't use that conclusion to support your arguments here.
You need to support your assertion that Martin Harris didn't need to have a spiritual experience in the context of a religion built on spiritual experiences.
Actually, that's still not enough. He may not have needed to, but that's what he and others say happened. You need to show why their experiences are incompatible with real plates.
Even assuming a worldview with angels, the plates were supposedly a physical object that existed here in the real world and that Emma Smith dusted around. If they really existed, even in a world with angels, joseph Smith could have whipped off the tablecloth hiding them and shown them to someone. In your world, presumably with angels and spiritual experiences, you see things with your eyes all the time without the necessity of angelic intervention. The gold plates were supposed to exist on this plane - the normal no -magical one. Joseph Smith got them out of a box on the Hill Cumorah, hid them from mobs, had them in his house like a normal object. But nobody saw them in that normal way. Either they were a real object -- that could be seen without angelic intervention -- as presented by Joseph Smith or they weren't. The witness statements sure sound like they were not. We now have a split begween joseph Smith's story and the witnesses story that must be examined no matter your feelings about the essential nature of the world.
Edit - even in a world with angels there is deception. Steven Burnett and luke Johnson and the others that left the Mormon church after Martin Harris's involuntary confession were open to angels and spotted deception. I looked at the Fairmormon description of the Burnett letter. They leave out a corroborating letter written by George A. Smith, and this one, by William Parrish, Joseph Smith's scribe from 1835-1837.
KIRTLAND, AUG. 11th. 1838.
Sir -- In answer to your inquiries,
1st. Whether I believe in the book of Mormon as being of divine origin? I answer, I do not; and that for the best of reasons, viz. Martin Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses; has come out at last, and says he never saw the plates, from which the book purports to have been translated, except in vision; and he further says that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Joseph not excepted; -- see new edition, Book of Covenants, page 170, which agrees with Harris's testimony.
2d. Whether J. Smith's brothers are still in the faith? I answer, that I do not believe they are, or ever were; neither do I believe that Joseph or Rigdon either believe in the Bible, book of Mormon, or book of Covenants; they are notorious infidels. Smith says he has got as good an inquisition around him in Missouri, as the pope ever had, and he says that Mahomet was a true prophet, and he propagated his religion by the sword, and so will he; this he intends to do to my certain knowledge, if his own assertions can be believed.
3d. Orson Pratt was preaching Mormonism in New York the last I heard from him.
4th. William McLellen, Oliver Cowdery, David and John Whitmers and many others have withdrawn from them. Lyman Johnson, one of the 12 apostles, withdrew from them, and they tried to kill him, they fired thirteen guns at him while he was leaving. W. PARRISH.
Found here.
If they really existed, even in a world with angels, joseph Smith could have whipped off the tablecloth hiding them and shown them to someone.
Certainly, but he was commanded not to. Unless you take issue with that as well?
But nobody saw them in that normal way.
That's simply not true. You are presenting a false dichotomy where spiritual experiences and physical experiences are mutually exclusive. If Martin Harris saw a physical angel, and the physical plates, why can he not characterize this as a spiritual experience, which it clearly was?
Either they were a real object -- that could be seen without angelic intervention -- as presented by Joseph Smith or they weren't.
We're not discussing “could”, we're discussing “did”. Certainly, I agree that they could be seen without angelic intervention. No one contends that there was an angel constantly present during the times that Joseph Smith translated with the plates near him (I'm not referring to the times when the plates were not near, obviously).
Martin Harris never saw the plates. He might have seen them like a city through a mountain. Nope, that was David Whitmer. The witnesses are describing seeing the plates in their imagination "and any man who has seen them another way is a liar." That is what makes it supernatural to them, they are not describing a physical angel who showed them physical plates.
A few questions and requests for sources.
I also believe the statements of the witnesses to the gold plates.
When I was just a kid, the Boise attorney-scholar Ariel Crowley published three articles in The Improvement Era, January-March, 1842, that compared the transcript characters to Egyptian and found that every last one of them matched up.
It is riddled with nineteenth-century Protestant theology and phrasing
* Slight edit to the wording.
But they are the foundation, and I do not live in the cellar.
I know I am late to the party, but I have commonly rebutted this argument with the scripture as found in Matthew. Matthew 7:24-27 When the topic of cafeteria mormonism comes up, I warn them that they are likely to run into hard line mormon bishops and officials who will absolutely hold their feet to the fire and enforce their own version of orthodoxy before issuing a temple recommend, or otherwise declaring them worthy to participate. Check this recent example, and I have a whole stack more to draw on if you think this is an isolated case.
Thanks for doing this AMA. It must be hard to answer questions to a mostly hostile audience so thanks so much for your time.
A few years ago in a class on contemporary Mormonism that Claudia and I were teaching at Columbia, one of the students asked me do you believe the Book of Mormon. I said that it was an incredibly complicated book that worked on many different levels. In my opinion, it was either a work of genius or inspired, and knowing what I do about Joseph Smith, I don't believe he was capable of writing it. I really don't know how the published text relates to the text on the plates, considering that Joseph did not look at the plates as he dictated the book. There are various ways of explaining that, but I do think the Book of Mormon is a marvelous creation and far beyond Joseph Smith's natural powers in 1829.
I hear this from Mormons frequently but I'm not aware of any non-Mormon positive reviews of the Book of Mormon. There are parts of the bible that are highly praised by non religious people. The Koran is regarded as great literature. But from what I can tell, nearly everyone who reads the book from a non-Mormon perspective isn't that impressed. Am I wrong with this understanding? Are there reviews of the BoM giving it similar standing to the Bible/Koran?
Thanks for doing this AMA. It must be hard to answer questions to a mostly hostile audience so thanks so much for your time.
The word you're looking for is critical or perhaps analytic. We shouldn't confuse pointed questions for hostility.
but I'm not aware of any non-Mormon positive reviews of the Book of Mormon
There are many in this thread.
Richard, I appreciated your attempt to address these issues in a candid manor. It is encouraging to see an improved level of transparency. That said, where is the prophet in all this?
If God has personally selected Thomas Monson as His official mouthpiece to the world why are we not hearing from him on these issues? Would Thomas Monson be willing to discuss the Church's (and by extension the Lord's) official responses to these troubling concerns in a public, recorded Q and A?
The apostasy caused great confusion because, as Joseph Smith noted, the scriptures were being interpreted by each man according to his or her own understanding. As a response the Lord provided additional scripture as part of the Restoration. Each volume of canonized scripture (Bible, BOM, PoGP, D&C) reinforces the literal occurrence of a global immersion during the time of Noah. Also the literal reality of the tower of Babel as well as the Fall introducing death into the world approximately 6000 years ago. Does the prophet stand by these events as literal?
Joseph Smith prophesied that if the temple ceremony is altered it is a sign the church has entered apostasy. Likewise Brigham Young prophesied that if we allow interracial marriages the church will immediately lose the priesthood and will be thrust into apostasy. Both of these things have now been done. Is the church currently in apostasy, operating without priesthood authority? It would appear that:
1) If the founding prophets were right, the current prophets have gone astray. or 2) If the founding prophets were wrong, the current prophets never had authority to begin with.
As a side note: since we as a church dismiss nearly every major doctrinal insight Brigham Young provided (Adam-God, blood atonement, institutional racism, misogyny, etc) isn't it reasonable to conclude that he was not Joseph Smith's proper successor? Even if JS was a true prophet isn't it much more likely that one of the other sects of Mormonism carries the unbroken priesthood line?
The Church currently claims 15 million members. How is this number derived? The actual number of congregations worldwide is reported to be 29,014. This equates to over 500 members in every congregation in the world. Clearly this number (15m) does not represent current, active membership. What is the current, active membership? (Surely this number is known. Each week the membership is counted by the clerk during sacrament meetings. Also roles are kept for classes.)
If only one of the above questions is appropriate, feel free to disregard the others. I look forward to your AMA.
Question: As a side note: since we as a church dismiss nearly every major doctrinal insight Brigham Young provided (Adam-God, blood atonement, institutional racism, misogyny, etc) isn't it reasonable to conclude that he was not Joseph Smith's proper successor?
Answer: The problem with Brigham Young has come to a head recently with the publication of the race and priesthood statement. The statement comes very close to saying that Brigham Young erred in enunciating the priesthood ban, and by implication all the other prophets who sustained it down to 1978 erred with him. What are faithful Mormons to do with Church leaders who make mistakes? The idea is not new. We have always said that the prophets from Joseph Smith down were human and subject to human error, but it gets more difficult when they erred in a doctrinal matter like blacks and the priesthood.
Frankly I think this gets to the heart of Mormonism. Can we believe that fallible human beings can also be conduits for the Lord's will, despite their errors? Do we believe our bishops and stake presidents can be trusted to carry out the Lord's will in their jurisdictions? Can we ourselves, with all of our flaws, nonetheless be inspired of the Lord? Can the “weak things of the world” be agents of God? It is a daring assertion, but it lies at the center of our religion. Our leaders like ourselves will make mistakes, and we can only hope that we all will learn to correct our mistakes and go on, still confident that God is with us.
Hi Richard, thank you for your time and your honest, informative responses.
Can we believe that fallible human beings can also be conduits for the Lord's will, despite their errors?
I can be forgiving of mistakes, especially if corrected (and hopefully apologized for) but the priesthood ban is something that went on for over a hundred years and had a significant impact on many peoples' lives before being corrected. How do you square that with this statement by Wilford Woodruff:
“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” --Wilford Woodruff
If the priesthood ban, and other Young doctrines which were only disavowed later, were mistakes, they represent the president of the church leading it astray in a direction from which it did not return for a very long time. The very idea that the church is led by God and modern prophets seems meaningless if he wouldn't correct such a significant error for such a long period. Do you think that Brigham Young's doctrinal mistakes and Woodruff's statement are consistent?
The statement comes very close to saying that Brigham Young erred in enunciating the priesthood ban, and by implication all the other prophets who sustained it down to 1978 erred with him
Based on your statement earlier about restorations being potentially misconstrued by Joseph, is then your belief that the great apostasy didn't happen in the way believed by current LDS members? Specifically, do you believe other churches may currently have authority to act in the name of God and that Mormonism isn't the one great true church in Christendom?
If this is incorrect, can you describe how you distinguish between a mistake being propagated across 120 years of prophetic successors/church policy and an official apostasy?
Hi Mr. Bushman!
In the Spring of 2011, you and your wife met with my wife and I for lunch at the Huntington Library and we discussed the church.
First, thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I really enjoyed it.
Since we met, I have wished I could ask you a few follow-up questions, and now is my chance.
If I've mischaracterized or misconstrued anything from our lunch, I apologize, but I took notes afterwards and wrote about it in my journal (both of which I have referred to) so I am not working from memory.
EDIT: accidentally two words
Question: You said that your testimony was somewhat mystical. Can you expand on this? What does it mean to have a mystical testimony? You said that you believed the Book of Mormon was literal history. How does this literal belief in the Book of Mormon relate to your mystical testimony? Do you have a mystical testimony that the Book of Mormon is literally true? Can you clarify what you believe about the historicity Book or Mormon?
Answer: I enjoyed our conversation at the Huntington very much. It is hard to remember all that transpired, however, and I don't remember talking about a mystical testimony. It is not a word I ordinarily use. As a young man in the mission field I did pray very hard about the Book of Mormon and came to feel that it was right. By that I meant everything seemed to fall into place. But that came after a lot of thinking and questioning. My conclusion was something like what we mean when we say something is a good fit. My thoughts and feelings came together. The question of historicity is complicated. I suppose I come down in something like a Blake Ostler position; the book is a melding. The fact is there is a lot of Christian theology couched in nineteenth century language in the book, not what you find in ancient Hebrew texts. It is possible there was more Christianity in antiquity than we think; Margaret Barker's work points in that direction. Or it is possible that translation involved taking ancient language and giving it modern Christian meanings, as Paul and Christ use Hebrew texts for their purposes. Since the book was intended for a nineteenth-century audience, the translation employed nineteenth-century language, not just occasional words, but large bodies of thought. I don't think this question is settled yet, even among Mormons.
Thank you for taking the time to do this AMA and to respond to two of my questions. I'm pretty sure you used the word mystical to describe your testimony, but maybe I put that word in my notes erroneously.
Hi, I've been a fan ever since I read a copy of “Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism” that I found in a church library when I was a missionary. I'm not an exmormon, but I do have some questions.
Thanks for doing this AMA. I look forward to reading your responses (to all the questions here, not just mine).
Question: How much of an impact do you think that Sidney Rigdon's Campbellite ideas have on modern LDS theology? Did he significantly alter Mormonism after he joined, or did he just find a group that already taught a lot of the things he believed?
Answer: Joseph Smith was very eclectic. He drew upon ideas from all over, including Masonic ritual. I am not aware of source criticism of Rigdon's influence, but I am inclined to think it was fairly large. It is quite possible that the idea of Restoration came from him. Restoration in the Book of Mormon refers to the restoration of Israel, the return of Israel to its favored place in God's eyes, not the restoration of the New Testament church. Rigdon who was a restorationist along with Campbell could very well have turned Joseph's thinking in that direction. I also think he may have been responsible for the phrase “creeds are an abomination.” That was hobby horse of Alexander Campbell's. Since Rigdon was involved in writing Joseph Smith's 1838 history, he may have been one to introduce that language into the account of the First Vision.
Thank you. I've often said that the 1838 version of the first vision sounds far more Rigdon than Smith. “Creeds are an abomination” is a strong indicator of his involvement
/u/Mithryn ‘s Own version of the Spaulding-Rigdon timeline
"I'm not an exmormon "
You should try it. It's great!
Ahh the erect phallus. The funniest thing I've learned about since leaving Mormonism. I didn't know they actually blotted it out in previous versions.
Photo of Fig 7 from 1968 printing
Photo of Fig 7 from 1987 printing
Thanks! Adding that to my blog lol
Now, here's my real question on the subject: in some old version of the Book of Abraham, the figure is edited and does not have this sign/phallus. Do you know when it was first edited out, who wanted it changed, and whether they did so because they were aware that it was an erect penis? As a follow-up, when it was restored, do you know who made that call or why?
Photo of Fig 7 from 1968 printing
Photo of Fig 7 from 1987 printing
In your book Rough Stone Rolling, you suggest that Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife.
Do you believe it was a legal marriage, instead of a sealing, as a sealing would have been anachronistic? If so why isn't there a court record of their marriage and why didn't Fanny attempt a divorce before she remarried?
In your book you said Oliver Cowdery was the only one who claimed it was an adulterous relationship, but didn't Fanny Brewer speak up as well: “much excitement against the Prophet…[involving] an unlawful intercourse between himself and a young orphan girl residing in his family and under his protection.” Why do you discount her testimony?
You go over witnesses testifying that Fanny and Joseph were married as evidence of their marriage, but many of these accounts weren't contemporary. Why do you put more weight on one testimony over another (Cowdery, Emma, Parish and Brewer)? Can you go over your evidence for their marriage? I would like to believe that they were married, but would like a little more than just ‘JS friends backed him up'.
In your book you also argue for their marriage because JS confessed to relationships, but insisted they weren't adulterous, therefore he was saying he was married. But married or not, isn't the mere fact he was having sex without Emma's knowledge, make it adulterous? It obviously hurt Emma the same way adultery would have based on her reaction. Shouldn't this take away from JS testimony being infallible in this instance?
Thank you for clarifying this subject a little better. I try to take your side where I can, I just don't see the evidence being there for a marriage. I'm hoping you can convince me otherwise.
EDIT: spelling
Question: You go over witnesses testifying that Fanny and Joseph were married as evidence of their marriage, but many of these accounts weren't contemporary. Why do you put more weight on one testimony over another (Cowdery, Emma, Parish and Brewer)? Can you go over your evidence for their marriage? I would like to believe that they were married, but would like a little more than just ‘JS friends backed him up'.
Answer: I relied on Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness for my judgments about Fanny Alger.
Thank you for looking over my question. I am familiar with Compton's work and understand if this isn't your area of expertise. I sincerely appreciate the response and will dig a little more from his work and sources.
But can you answer the first question about what manner of marriage it might have been? Many of the witness who claimed they were married said it was a sealing, but it couldn't have been a sealing due to the time period. If not would it be common for there not to be a court record of their marriage? Or would it be normal behavior for Fanny to marry again without attempting a divorce?
"Do you believe it was a legal marriage, instead of a sealing, as a sealing would have been anachronistic? If so why isn't there a court record of their marriage and why didn't Fanny attempt a divorce before she remarried?"
Upvote for you!
This stuff gives me brain buzz. It's like its difficult to even look back into the mormon world once you see through the curtain. Every direction you look is another element pointing clearly to fraud... but regardless, the tithes march on. =)
“At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision. Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision.” (Rough Stone Rolling, pg 39) How can we reconcile this with the official narrative in Joseph Smith History, which mentions “great persecution,” “men of high standing [taking] notice” of Smith, and all sects “[uniting] to persecute [him].”
As I understand it, there is no surviving evidence at all that Smith told anyone about a “first vision” until the 1832 account. Nothing from his family, from church sources, from other historical sources, or even a mention in anti-Mormon sources criticizing his claim of seeing God. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong on this.)
It just seems to me that if events occurred as told in the official account, the level of extant evidence would be (far) greater than zero. Is it possible that Smith greatly exaggerated the claims of persecution when writing his 1838 version of the vision? To me, verses 22-25 of JSH just don't jibe with the historical record, nor with your description thereof (as quoted at the start of this post).
Question: Is it possible that Smith greatly exaggerated the claims of persecution when writing his 1838 version of the vision? To me, verses 22-25 of JSH just don't jibe with the historical record, nor with your description thereof (as quoted at the start of this post).
Answer: I think it is possible that Smith exaggerated the claims of his 1820 persecutions when he wrote in 1838. He had undergone a great deal of serious persecution just recently, and he may have seen his early troubles as the first stage. He may have been a little on the paranoid side too, exaggerating opposition when he encountered it. He certainly was sensitive to insults of any kind. I conjecture that after the First Vision he said nothing to his family but did confide in a minister. When his account was dismissed, he took it badly. After all he had come to open his heart and was rejected by a minister who probably was impatient with visionary claims. The experience made him all the more wary about telling anyone about his experiences. By his own account, he said nothing about Moroni to his family until admonished by the angel.
I had family members tell me I was wrong when I told them this so I spent a while looking for any mention of it before 1832. The only thing I could find is one critical newspaper article that says something along the lines that JS's followers claim he has talked to God frequently. But that was from 1831. And then later the same paper claims that it was well known that he didn't get visions/visitations until after the (what we call now) Moroni visit.
So I'd like to see a historian's answer to this as well. If there isn't any evidence of it, do you see the church moving to a more historically accurate version of this in the future? If so, what might that look like?
Dr. Bushman, thank you for taking the time to answer some of these questions - especially as so many of them will have a challenging, critical, or negative tone.
My question is a 2-parter: Does the Tower of Babel have to be a literal event to reconcile the truth claims of the Book of Mormon and by extension, the LDS Church? If not, please explain how a metaphorical Tower makes sense in the context of the Jaredites.
Thank you!
Question: Does the Tower of Babel have to be a literal event to reconcile the truth claims of the Book of Mormon and by extension, the LDS Church? If not, please explain how a metaphorical Tower makes sense in the context of the Jaredites.
Answer: The Tower of Babel is one of those images that modern scholars dismiss because it seems too outlandish, something like Jonah in the belly of the whale. It may be there is nothing to it. On the other hand, archeologists have worked with ancient legends to see if there is not a kernel of truth in them. A great deal of Greek archeology has been motivated by Homer's Iliad. In something so remote as the Tower of Babel, we have to suspend judgment while waiting for further evidence.
Hi Richard, the idea that the Tower of Babel was the origin of language can be tested, can't it? Couldn't we simply map out the average and maximum possible generation gap as listed in the Book of Ether. That gives us a genealogy, combined with the claim that Coriantumr was picked up by the Zarahemlites who are said to have landed at ~587 BC.
At the maximum range we would only need two distinct languages to show that the fall of the tower couldn't have been the origin of multiple languages on the earth.
Quick napkin math, I counted ~32 generations, and if we say they're 70 years apart (rather extreme) adding the 587 BC Zarahemla, we get (32 * 70 years BC ) + 587 years BC= 2827 BC as the rough maximum bound (2240 years from Jared fleeing the collapse of the Tower to Ether watching Coriantimr kill Shiz). Egyptian was around in ~3400. Sumerian was at least 3500 BC. -Note that the LDS.org site lists the fall of babel around 2200 BC and Noah's flood just 200 years prior.
Unlike non-literalist interpretations of the bible, however, the Book of Mormon does not seem allow for much leniency in this matter. I think that is the principle thrust of the question.
If the Tower of Babel did not exist literally, with a literal scrambling of the languages, in the literal timeframe specified by the bible, the Jaredite narrative and by extension, the Book of Mormon's narrative as a true history, seems to break down.
It is easy for LDS faithful to dismiss Stories like Jonah on the same basis as many Christians. It is not literal, it's a myth, it's been exaggerated through biblical translations etc.The Book of Mormon, however, wouldn't allow such an easy dismissal of the tower.
So are you saying we just haven't found the tower so we must suspend judgement or that there is a way to reconcile a non-literal tower with the Book of Mormon? (If so, how do you reconcile that?) Or something else entirely?
This sounds like you answered a question asking whether you believe the tower of Babel was true. However, the question didn't actually ask that. Instead, the question asked whether [or] not you believed the tower of babel needed to be literal to reconcile the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.
Would you mind answering that one as well?
TL;DR - some dismiss it as myth, others say assume yes while we (don't) search for evidence of it.
What are your thoughts on the “ordain women” movement?
Do you agree with it? Do you think it will gain momentum or fade away as time goes on? Do you think the church is flexible enough to someday embrace it? If so, how long would it take?
What's your strongest argument for Mormonism? As we are on /r/exmormon I feel that this is a good question to ask.
I remained a Mormon because when I followed my religion I became the kind of man I want to be. No philosophy, no evidence, nothing elaborate. Simply the personal reality that my religion helps me get better. That's what it comes down to in the crunch
This explains why he believes. I found it just now.
Richard, in your book Rough Stone Rolling, you reveal the fact that the Smiths were very involved with folk magic, using seer stones and divining rods and all kinds of magical tools and superstitions. You justified this by declaring that the work in folk magic was “preparatory” to becoming a prophet.
Please confirm to us - in your heart of hearts - do you truly believe that God needed to let Joseph dabble in the black magic of the adversary as a preparation for being a prophet of God? Wouldn't God have instead chosen a believing young man who was faithful and believing and not associating with magical stones, treasuring digging and divining communications with spirits on the day of the dead - fall equinox - as he did to communicate with Moroni? Please explain your faith in this as an authentic, faithful explanation for such behavior?
Question: Please confirm to us - in your heart of hearts - do you truly believe that God needed to let Joseph dabble in the black magic of the adversary as a preparation for being a prophet of God? Wouldn't God have instead chosen a believing young man who was faithful and believing and not associating with magical stones, treasuring digging and divining communications with spirits on the day of the dead - fall equinox - as he did to communicate with Moroni?
Answer: Magic should not be thought of as always demonic any more than many other ways of dealing with the supernatural. The people of the time did not think that way. The condemnation of magic was a Protestant way of discrediting Catholic practices. I compare magic to astrology today. It may be foolish but it is not necessarily evil. The revelations did not condemn Oliver's rod or instruct Joseph to give up on his talismans. They were an innocent part of his culture—erroneous perhaps but not demonic. I see nothing inconsistent in the idea that magic was a step toward Joseph's use of the seerstone.
I would beg to differ. I think your assessment is completely false and I'd like evidence to support such a claim. I think there was an area of complete freaks in that part of the country who were doing all kinds of backwords crap, but I don't believe there was any religious structure that would have claimed that such things as magic were not of the devil. The witch trials were clear evidence that no such notions were tolerated amongst Christian denominations. I don't think you have proof nor substantive reasoning for such an bizarre claim. Christians have been beating on pagans and magical behavior for a long time. Any association between magic and God would not have been claimed.
Magic should not be thought of as always demonic any more than many other ways of dealing with the supernatural.
Do you believe that magic is real Dr. Bushman?
This question brings to mind the powerful talk Profile of a Prophet in which Hugh B. Brown argued that a true prophet would be “a dignified man with a dignified message—no table jumping, no whisperings from the dead, no clairvoyance, but an intelligent statement of truth.” Wouldn't you agree that, at least with regard to this criterion, Joseph Smith now comes up rather short?
I submit to you that the Prophet Joseph Smith in translating the Book of Mormon did a superhuman work. I ask you students to undertake to write a story on the ancient inhabitants of America, to write as he did without any source of material
This is golden.
We agreed between us that the following characteristics should distinguish a man who claims to be a prophet:
Now I have given but an outline that you can fill in and amplify and then measure and judge the Prophet Joseph Smith by the work and stature of other prophets.
As a student of the life of the Prophet Joseph Smith for more than 50 years, I say to you young men and women: by these standards Joseph Smith qualifies as a prophet of God.
So by his defintion none of the previous prophets were speaking in the name of the Lord. lol
Thanks for doing this, I appreciate the time involved. I am currently reading RSR having already read Brodie and Quinn.
My question is what are your opinions on the research and publications of Brodie and Quinn into the life of Joseph Smith? Is it fair that their books are treated with great suspicion by the general membership? This seems unfair since their publications were quite groundbreaking at the time and RSR seems to rely on them as foundations.
thelinchpinhippocampostomy
I have three questions, ranked by my interest:
Thank you for doing this AMA! It's a big deal to me.
Hi Dr. Bushman! Thank you so much for doing this AMA.
I read RSR while I was a TBM, and really enjoyed it and felt that it gave me a well-rounded and realistic view of the early Church and JS's place in it. Over the next few years, mostly scientific, philosophical, and epistemological issues led me to update my beliefs , and now I do not believe in God(s).
I've heard/read some of your thoughts regarding participating in the LDS faith even while having modified beliefs or choosing to believe, and for me that just isn't even a possibility--even though my wife would be overjoyed if I somehow managed that.
My question then is what would make it impossible for you to remain associated with the LDS faith? What would be your limit for saying, “I can still choose to believe”?
Thanks again!
I hope you have some spiritual foundation for your life.
I was so excited to see Richard Bushman had answered my question, and then I saw the answer.
I don't know how to feel about this response...
edit: And to answer the question, I do have a spiritual foundation--it is empathy for others, faith in humanity, and enjoying the simple pleasures. Life is good!
Based on all his other answers, I think he might have mis-read your question.
Richard, I was amazed at this article wherein you are essentially suggesting that the church stop preaching the “follow the prophet, don't go astray” theory of Prophetic Perfection. Suggesting a new paradigm, even, wherein prophets can lead us astray based on personal prejudices without godly intervention for centuries at a time. One where we must be “mature” enough to see they are not always led by God.
You were quoted as saying...
“it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.”
But accepting that, Bushman says, “requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking.”
Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, “it brings into question all of the prophet's inspiration.”
Members need to recognize that God can “work through imperfect instruments,” Bushman says. “For many Latter-day Saints, that is going to be a difficult transition. But it is part of our maturation as a church.”
Are you acting as a front man for the church, under their direction, or do you expect to come under fire and be disciplined for this blasphemous statement?
Question: Are you acting as a front man for the church, under their direction?
Answer: No official church person read or advised me on Rough Stone Rolling. I did have Ron Esplin, editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, read the manuscript for historical accuracy since he is so well informed. But the judgments are solely my own. No Church official has asked me to contribute to forums like this one or to give firesides or to do any speaking. I make an effort to say I do not speak for the Church. I do hear from the secular press a lot, but in those interviews I speak only for myself.
But Elder Packer gave you a blessing in conjunction with your writing the book, correct? Was there any informal advising in conjunction with that event/meeting?
Might want to take out “blasphemous”. It's somewhat of an accusation. It is interesting though...
Members need to recognize that God can “work through imperfect instruments
If God can do this why is the church heading downhill haha. My mom loves to ask me, “How has the prophet led you astray?”
Has your experience as a stake patriarch given you any insight into the nature of revelation and whatever revelatory process Joseph Smith may have experienced?
Has your experience as a stake patriarch given you any insight into the nature of revelation and whatever revelatory process Joseph Smith may have experienced?
Answer: I have sometimes said that Latter-day Saints can believe in the prophets' revelations because they receive revelations themselves. The opposite is true too. We believe we can receive revelation because we think God is actively involved in managing the Church. Early on in my time as patriarch, a General Authority said the brethren had one piece of advice for patriarchs: “Give voice to the spirit of prophecy.”
That helped me to trust my own inspiration more. (I was inclined to edit my thoughts before speaking them in a blessing.) But it also made me realize how hard it is to lead the Church, how the prophets must struggle to know the mind and will of the Lord, and how sometimes it is not always clear. One of the essential ingredients of Mormonism, however, is that we trust each other when we come into one of these roles—as patriarch, or bishop, or Relief Society President. Even though we know the revelation is sometimes foggy, we accept it when it comes from our bishop. We know they will make mistakes (I certainly did), but we go along with them trusting that over the long run we will stay on the right track and be better off for trusting one another.
Thank you for this.
One of the essential ingredients of Mormonism, however, is that we trust each other
Why do I get the feeling that many times trusting each other turns out like this?
I was going to ask the same thing. Wonderful question.
Were you involved in the discussions with church leaders about the decision to address 13 controversial topics on LDS.org? If so what can you say about how that decision was made, who supported it, and what their concerns are? Do you have concerns about them doing it personally? seems to me the disaffection rate could potentially increase dramatically once members see that things like Joseph Smiths polyandry aren't anti-Mormon lies after all.
This is my question too. How involved were you in the new Topics coming out from Elder Snow's Church History dept?
Will you be involved in the next level that dives deeper after they finish the first level in April 2014? Do you know any more about that?
If you cannot answer these questions...Did you have to sign a NDA to contribute to LDS Topics and other efforts at the LDS Church?
Question: How involved were you in the new Topics coming out from Elder Snow's Church History dept?
Answer: I have been aware of the project and talked to the person in charge, but I have not been asked to write any of the essays nor consulted on what topics to consider.
Hello, Thank you for doing this!
What do you think of the Vern Holly map, and the similarities of place names such as Cumorah, Moroni, etc. that were known to Joseph Smith in his day. How did they all end up in the Book of Mormon? Also, what do you think of the recent presentation on the “Late War” book?
OlderexmoI left before Al Gore invented the internet
Richard, enjoyed reading Rough Stone Rolling. Thank you for writing it. Just curious, did anyone from the church read drafts and / or provide comments before the book was published? If so, would you tell us who was involved and how that process worked?
Answer: No one but Ron Esplin as I say elsewhere. I tried to keep myself entirely independent of the Church.
Dr. Bushman,
I believe you were close to a certain man: Rulon (Ted) Johnson. Did he ever share with you his theories about the Book of Mormon geography, etc. or the details of the book he intended to write? If so, what did you think?
Answer: We did talk briefly but I never heard the details. I do know he disagreed with John Sorenen.
My sister and brother-in-law both read your book but just consider it all as “interesting facts.” When does historical accuracy matter in regards to the veracity of Mormonism? Of truth? Isn't a fairy-tale simply a story without historical merit? Why bother with studying the history, doctrine, and scientific claims of the church if all we need is faith to be converted?
From my conversations with family and members I see this time and time again. It seems all they care to rely on is their “feelings”.
Looks like I'll never find out :[
There has been a lot of discussion in the wake of the “race and the priesthood” statement about the nature of prophets and whether we can hold them to a higher standard than the average person. It seems that the church is urging us to see them as regular, fallible people but doesn't that approach neglect the fact that they claim to be PROPHETS SEERS and REVELATORS? It seems to me that if that claim were true then their mistakes are gods mistakes -- particularly when it comes to big decisions impacting the church as a whole, such as The decision to deny the priesthood to blacks, or the decision to support Proposition 8 in California. It's pretty clear to me that both of those were huge mistakes.
Your book was the first exposure I had to the magical world view of Joseph Smith Junior. If I recall correctly, you seemed to cast it in the light of a preparatory phase so that he and his family would be able to accept the restorative events.
The question I have, is why did he not then give up his magical world view, but seem to expand it with the passing of time and the restoration.
It seems like the wearing of a Jupiter talisman (which he supposedly wore to his death, with eschewing his garments) suggest that he never gave up the occult in his life and that it wasn't just a phase or preparation.
Answer: An interesting question which in my mind is related to the matter of our culture versus God's culture. Who knows how far apart they are, but the Lord seems to be tolerant of us and lets us continue with much of what could be called worldly culture. I think the reason is that our lives are so intertwined with the culture we assimilated as we grew up that to extricate one from the other would destroy us. We are and probably will be for a long time into eternity 21st century Americans. From my point of view, the project is not to eradicate our worldly culture but to sanctify it. We must learn to turn what we are in godly directions, and that includes magic.
We must learn to turn what we are in godly directions, and that includes magic.
Are you familiar with James Randi and the efforts to find any evidence of “magic” that stands up to scientifically rigorous claims?
I think many in your audience here view magic as nothing more than fooling the foolish with tricks, and not that there was an actual “magic” that sources from... God? Demons? I'm not sure what you believe.
I think many will read your statements like this:
“God used deception and trickery (Magic) to teach Joseph)” or “We must learn to turn what we are in godly directions, and that includes deception of the foolish and using trickery”, which I assume you do not mean.
That is to say, you believe there are supernatural forces not from God nor from Satan that can be controlled via rocks, talismen, rods, etc.?
I honestly don't see how you can read his comment above as saying “Magic is totally real.”
As far as I can tell, what he actually said was, “All of us believe in silly or stupid things, but the Lord takes us as we are and tries to improve us one step at a time, even if that means he has to tolerate silliness and stupidity.”
Because god didn't have to take Joseph Smith as he was. He had scores of pious men begging Him to work through them.
Inherent in Mormon lore is that god waited centuries “until he found one faithful in whom he could confide”. The implication is that a person trained in local mystic ways was superior than all the other people god could choose.
But moreover I was saying that those who don't believe magic is real, Joseph appears to be only a con artist. And Bushman's statement paints that as a virtue. I was hoping to help him clarify to his audience, most of whom don't believe magic is a virtue.
Thanks for your replies /u/Mithryn They sum up what I was thinking about the answer given.
Ha! We were writing almost the same question at the same time!
I just saw that. Different enough to warrant separate questions though. Same background, different question.
D&C 111 also comes to mind. Clearly JS believed in magic as late as 1836.
My question will sound very simple and perhaps silly, but what makes you stay Mormon? Is there a cultural, moral or social benefit to you staying? If so, what is it? If not, do you truly believe that Mormonism is true with a capital T? If so, what evidence do you have that we seem to be missing? I loved your book, Rough Stone Rolling, but it rather seemed to confirm my suspicions about the founding of Mormonism rather than dispel them. I respect you very much as a historian (I'm going into History myself, hoping to eventually get a Ph.D) and I would greatly appreciate your answer. Thanks for doing this AMA
Answer: I attempt an answer in the statement under my account above. But actually it is far more complicated than can be summed up in one brief statement. I don't have just one testimony. I have many testimonies.
Was Joseph Smith just simply (and sincerely?) wrong about the Book of Abraham? If so, what does that say about the Book of Mormon?
Question: Was Joseph Smith just simply (and sincerely?) wrong about the Book of Abraham? If so, what does that say about the Book of Mormon?
Answer: I think he was sincerely wrong about the contents of the scrolls. He thought they were the writings of Abraham and Joseph and seems to have been wrong on that score. (There is still an argument that Abraham's writings appeared on parts of the scroll we do not have.) I don't think he was necessarily wrong about the English text. It does have marks of coming from the tradition of Abrahamic writings.
Abraham and the Book of Mormon are alike in that both came by way of inspiration rather than literal translation. Joseph did not look at the plates as he translated, and he did not understand the Egyptian on the scrolls.
I feel like this claim could only be remotely valid if both texts weren't riddled with anachronisms and extraordinary claims.
"Joseph did not look at the plates as he translated, and he did not understand the Egyptian on the scrolls "
If only the majority of the Mormon population knew this...
What do you know about the rumored replacement for the “Comprehensive History of the Church” that is to be released? Do you know if it will happen soonish or will it be awhile?
What is your opinion of the “new” direction the Church is taking to address historical issues such as the new essays on troubling topics as well as possible changes to the curriculum? Do you believe these efforts will have a real impact?
Question: What is your opinion of the “new” direction the Church is taking to address historical issues such as the new essays on troubling topics as well as possible changes to the curriculum? Do you believe these efforts will have a real impact?
Answer: I think they will have an impact. Much of the disillusionment that questioners have experienced comes from their feeling that the truth was hidden from them. Simply bringing the issues out into the open will help dispel that feeling. Many of the people I talk to have felt that no one understood the doubts they had. Getting all this material out in the open is a positive development. I hope the time comes that people will feel they can address their questions within the Church rather than having to leave.
Just putting together a website with apologetic remarks isn't going to solve the problem of:
"their feeling that the truth was hidden from them "
That will only end if the church puts all of this material into their teaching manuals and teach it from childhood.
Especially that the prophets are men and make mistakes. I feel like the biggest push in my primary and YM/YW days was that the church is perfect and the leaders can't guide us astray.
If it isn't openly taught then it is hidden by omission.
President Uchtdorf spoke in General Conference about how the leaders of the church are men and that men make mistakes. For a member of the First Presidency to speak that openly, I would bet that we're going to start seeing significant changes in the way that the church teaches about how to follow the Brethren.
Yeah Uchtdorf said that, but Oaks laid down the party line about other things, and Oaks is more likely to be Prophet.
Considering the next few in line, and that are usually considered hard liners, I don't see this really happening.
I'd love to be wrong about that though.
Uchtdorf is a member of the First Presidency now. I'd say that takes precedence.
Either way, we'll see what the future holds as the church continues to roll out more open teachings on history.
It doesn't take precedence though, they just wanted a young guy to do the work I think, and a more moderate image, but the next 3 people who are likely to be prophet (based on actuarial tables of age and death rates) are Oaks, Holland, and Bednar.
If Tommy dies soon it would be Packer, Oaks, Holland, Bednar.
If you had to pick the hardliners from the current crop of apostles, those would be them.
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions!
I have three questions:
(There was an aside that ampersand117 made in bullet point #2 which was voluntarily delted and apologized for - the lengthy discussion about that point has been deleted from this conversation.)
Answer: This is a tough issue. It applies to LDS graduate students in biblical studies. How are they to bring their new found knowledge to bear in Sunday School classes? I have the same problem myself and do not have an answer. I tend to keep quiet, and that is not right.
Colleagues have told me, and I have experienced this myself, that when you are teaching you can bring in all your knowledge and people will actually be interested. But you do have to do it in the right spirit. If your aim is to shock people or to demonstrate your superiority you will meet resistance. If you truly want to enlarge their understanding and help them, not hurt them, many will be open.
I loved reading “Rough Stone Rolling”, and I think it's a great thing for you to educate the chapel Mormons about their history; however, I was disturbed by the amount of apologetics in a history book. Below are some factual errors, discrepancies, and internal contradictions within the book. I'd love to hear a response to either refute or confirm the claim. Page numbers are bolded.
69 - Bushman tries to distance Joseph from the occult and treasure digging past, but fails to mention the seer's stone he used to translate (same as the one he used to treasure dig)
72 - Claims Joseph was uneducated (He wasn't, see pg 20, 173).
72 - Hypothesizes on the translation methods. The Maxwell Institute claims it was from God via the seer's stone, character by character.
83 - Claims amazing book, but fails to mention the thousands of changes great and small. Omits testimonies of translation. Implies plates were present, when no first person testimonies support the claim.
90 - Watered down representation/straw man of the Spaulding theory.
91 - The love/hate relationship with Brodie's works. He can't seem to decide if he agrees or disagrees with her.
93 - Uses Chiasmus and specific rituals as a means of “proving” the authenticity. Fails to mention that many non-Hebrew/non-religious works have chiasmus (ie: Green Eggs and Ham, The great war*) and that the rituals were known to Joseph's area and time.
93 - Mentions several other claims that are false. Many others without evidence. Trying to prove a book while confusing his own belief for support. (grafting was known, Joseph had access to maps, limited geography ignores Joseph's own comments on hill cummorah or Zelph, to name a few, etc...). This continues for several pages.
122 - Mission to the Lamanites (Lamanites = Native Americans), contrast against the theories presented on page 93.
129 - Claims works of God is not frustrated - fails to mention polygamy, prop 8, among others.
158 - High Priests introduced. Lots of speculation, little to no justification.
137 - Fails to mention Book of Abraham in the translation claims. It's important as it's one of the few verifiable “translations”.
178 - Joseph was tarred and feathered due to bank failure, along with Rigdon. Fails to mention claims of banking society fraud, consorting with one of the man's sisters, and assumes the baby died of cold gained by exposure for dramatic impact. Claims lack of evidence without addressing existing evidence.
192 - Civil war prophecy mentioned, but does not include the then present-day news and ongoing nullification crises from which “the prophecy” may have been derived.
216 - Claims masonic temples were not connected to Joseph, this is wrong as Joseph was a Mason at this point and the ritual components are nearly identical.
217 - The endowment had already taken place by this point, see 159. Second “temple” as a printing office?
502 - Fails to mention the church assumed Joseph's debts. See 433. See also 503 for his claim that no project enriched Joseph (contrast with 329 and Joseph's near 2 million (in today's money) gift from the church).
522 - Claims theocracy is Christian - fails to mention that Christ explicitly did not take over the Government nor did he try to turn his followers into a nation.
538 - Still ignoring D&C 101 (the original) - Author redefines adultery so that any religious leader is excluded from the term. It's not adultery if God says it isn't; and it's not polygamy when done by the LDS. Fails to mention own rules restricting polygamy, such as Emma first approving each new wife, or unmarried (virgin?) brides.
* Note: I'm not supporting the derivation theory, only the existence of Chiasmus and stereotypical King James and writing in a non-religious, non-ancient book about the time that the Book of Mormon was created.
Hello, Thank you for doing this. What do you think of the “Caractors” Document? The one the RLDS has, not the Hoffman one. It seems to be me to be a legitimate document, and that Smith presented it as the characters that were on the plates. What do you think of the shorthand characters that have been matched up with it?
Prof. Bushman, I extensively cited your paper “The Visionary World of Joseph Smith” for one research paper (docx format).
I just wanted to say thank you for the topic idea and ask one question.
What do you think of my argument that the visionary aspects of Joseph Smith's theology helped to bridge the magic world view (or parts of the world view that impacted of Joseph's life, such as “peer stones” and such) to the restorationist project of the Church?
Did Joseph Smith Ordain women to the priesthood, like he did with black men?
Did Joseph Smith ordain women to some intermediary priesthood between what they have today (nothing outside the temple) and the male priesthood?
Thank you for this opportunity to ask questions. Lately the church has been addressing many troubling issues regarding history and doctrinal issues. During my conversations with individuals at work they already knew about polygamy and underage girls. They were shocked when they heard about polyandry. They also knew about many of the other issues that are unflattering to a church that claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth. When my non-member friends heard about the second anointing's that the church is now performing for some of their members they were appalled. In the past women were taught to believe that by marrying a Prophet of God their salvation would be guaranteed now the LDS church is guaranteeing exhalation once again to certain members of the church . When this practice becomes more widely known to outsiders do you think the church will be forced to stop this anointing? Christians call this anointing blasphemous. In their opinion only the Savior has the power and authority to decide who receives exhalation. Many of the comments I heard were “who do these people thing they are”, or “what right does any man have to nominate another man guaranteeing his exhalation”. Lastly, it appears as though the LDS church is trying to have more inter-faith dialogue and find acceptance in the Christian community. Per our Pastor being a Christian is not a denomination. How can the LDS church have a trusting relationship with the Christian community when they consider themselves the only true church on the face of the earth? In other words, would they not be like a wolf in sheep's clothing trying to lure members of other Christian faiths into their own denomination and belief system?
Question: How can the LDS church have a trusting relationship with the Christian community when they consider themselves the only true church on the face of the earth?
Answer: This is a major problem that we are gradually overcoming. On December 5 Mormons and Catholics met at Notre Dame to talk about differences and compatibilities. We did just fine. Where I am going on this matter is to say that being the true church does not mean all the other churches are false, as we said for so long. Rather it means we have a particular mission to fulfill.
Dr. Bushman,
Thank you for taking the time to answer questions.
I once attended a luncheon where you spoke. I notice that a room full of adults who all identified as Mormon were enamored with your presence. These were all respected men and women working in the top of their field with a near-unanimous admiration for you and your work.
Do you think this “rock-star status” affects your research, your publications or you speaking? Do you see a noticeable way in which your research is received now that you have gained notoriety as compared with your research earlier in your career?
Thanks again for your time.
Answer: [He may have answered this in the wrong place.] In my undergraduate years at Harvard, the Latter-day Saint students got together every Sunday to hash through our questions. We talked freely about everything. I have never felt that any topic was out of bounds. That may partly account for my willingness to face up to problems now without jumping ship.
Question: Do you think this “rock-star status” affects your research, your publications or you speaking? Do you see a noticeable way in which your research is received now that you have gained notoriety as compared with your research earlier in your career?
Answer: I am amazed at how well received Rough Stone Rolling has been. Soon after it came out I realized timing was everything. A lot of people in the Church were ready for a straightforward account of Joseph Smith that faced up to all the evidence. But you have to remember I have two audiences. I am a professional historian who also has to answer to my historian colleagues. They think of me as an early Americanist who has also dabbled in Mormonism. That prevents me from going too far off the track. When I speak I try to talk as if my historian friends were there too. I aspire to speak with a single voice.
As a follow up, does it affect your audience's ability to view your claims through a critical lens? Do you ever encourage them to do so?
I don't have a question, but a comment/request.
Dr. Bushman,
Thank you for taking your time to answer these questions. I hope you know that they come from a sincere place in our hearts and minds. While most or even all of us have left the Church, it is because no one has been able to sufficiently answer these questions.
In that light, I fear that 1 hour in not enough time for an appropriate AMA of this nature.
I fully understand and appreciate your busy schedule and the sacrifice that is involved in spending any amount of time with people who openly criticize the Church.
If you can, please spend more than 1 hours so as to properly answer the questions. Even if this means returning to answer more at another time.
Thank you for your consideration.
LOL this AMA will be interesting if he can even get through a FEW questions.
Given how long the average question has been, it may take quite some time. I've noticed though in past ama's that the questions that have 20 questiions within the single “question” usually are more likely to be skipped in favour of the questions that are just one or two questions specific to a certain topic. Should be interesting!
Character flaws, emotions, and motivations aside, what do you see as the single best documented indicator that Joseph actually had access to the mind and will of God?
I've been trying to figure out what it is that still convinces church members that he was a prophet and not just a typical religious leader/founder: The BoM has proven to have a number of historical and translation anachronisms that would not indicate any correlation with an omniscient being. The Book of Abraham translation would indicate that no all-knowing being was involved in that translation of the vignettes. Many specific prophesies failed to come about.
Is there a finding, in your eyes, that would indicate that Joseph hit something (at least one thing) so spot-on-the-head that it's difficult to ascribe any explanation besides a supernatural knowledge? (For example, if DNA evidence had indicated a Hebrew lineage for Native Americans...Or if Joseph had said of the BoA papyri, “Oh, those are just old funeral texts for a guy named Hor” instead of extrapolating a story about Abraham...something that would make us exmos scratch our heads...)
Question: Is there a finding, in your eyes, that would indicate that Joseph hit something (at least one thing) so spot-on-the-head that it's difficult to ascribe any explanation besides a supernatural knowledge?
Answer: In large systems it is hard to find one piece of evidence that carries the day. There is no one thing that proves evolution is true, and similarly no one thing that disproves it. Evolutionists can always work around negative evidence. It would be hard to prove or disprove democracy as the best form of government. It is an accumulation of perspectives and events that sustain big systems like these.
Respectfullly, while I feel that this response certainly serves you well, it serves the question poorly. It is an artful dodge that tells me about various types of flowers when I've asked when I should be planting my tulips.
While no one thing proves evolution to be true, some puzzle pieces are certainly more prominent and convincing than others.
And that's what I was asking for, not a silver bullet.
So to revise, based on your response, which events of Joseph's life most indicate that he was communicating with a diety?
Daniel C. Petersen has a number of things he believes Joseph could not have known if not supernaturally. A[s] Bushman says, none of them in isolation makes a powerful case, but it's a collection of these things that either strengthen's faith in believers of Joseph's divine calling or magnifies Joseph's religious genius as Michael Coe might put it. Perspective. Very rational people have read all the evidence ExMos know about and much much more and yet still have a very strong faith in Joseph, the Restoration, and the Church today.
Richard,
I was once known as a historian-of-sorts around here. Individuals like you, Brodie, Quinn, the guys at FAIR and the Maxwell Institute and my father encouraged me to ask hard questions and to wrestle with them until I found real answers.
I appreciate that. Thank you for your efforts.
(And if you ever have time, I'd love to have feedback on my timelines located here: Link is here.)
I think you may have been too late to catch him.
Probably. And that's okay.
Richard, I read that you sought out a blessing from Boyd K. Packer, the most antagonistic GA to intellectuals and unfriendly historians, prior to or during the writing of Rough Stone Rolling. I also read that you have asked whether it is bad that histories are written by historians with bias. How do you address claims of bias.
Are you willing to consider the possibility that Joseph Smith was not a prophet? In your mind, at what point do a prophet's moral failings call into question whether he is god's respresentative?
Question: I read that you sought out a blessing from Boyd K. Packer.
Answer: I had come to know Elder Packer when he was New England mission president. I knew he was interested in history. He urged me to follow the example of a nineteenth-century historian of Christ which I could not do writing in the 21st century. I have wondered if he was disappointed by my work.
Answer: I had come to know Elder Packer when he was New England mission president. I knew he was interested in (useful) history
FTFY [fixed that for you]
Brother Bushman,
Much has been made of the recent series of statements about controversial issues with LDS doctrine and practices. The “Race and the Priesthood” statement, released last week, has met with considerable joy and criticism in various corners of the internet.
What do you think about the statements? Do you think they are as intellectually honest and historically accurate as they are made out to be? Are they steps in the right direction? Diversions?
Do they do more harm than good by not being completely open and honest?
Thanks.
Answer: I am not aware of any inaccuracies. I suppose there are many other things that could be said. They are certainly a step in the right direction.
I believe he might be referring to this:
"God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.” "
That God created the black race as a mark to not mix seed is stated in the scriptures. Further the Book of Mormon never actually states the laminites skin color without degrading terms. Indeed, it was quite clearly stating that the curse was the black skin put on the lamanites in the early versions.
To cite “All are alike unto God” from 2 Nephi 26:33, discussing judgement back to back with statements that god created all races equally seems to be contrary or an “inaccuracy” intended to deceive compared to some of the other scriptures descriptions of God's use of skin color as a differentiator in the Book of Mormon, not discussing judgement.
Just as a start.
"That God created the black race as a mark to not mix seed is stated in the scriptures. "
All of my wut? Got a source for that?
Good heavens man, are you incapable of picking up the book of Mormon?
I'm retired, but you can find it in Mr. Diety's YouTube film where he reads the race related scriptures. Or look at just about any race related post on this board. Or go to scriptures.LDS.org and look up “mark”, “curse” or “skin” and read the links. God specifically tells Nephi the mark is to make them loathsome and to prevent mingling of descendants.
I just have to say, I really like retired /u/Mithryn . He is sassy, and don't take no guff from nobody.
Find your own damn sources you whipper snappers. I'm too old for that shit.
Edit: Also, get off my lawn!
TIL the African race are lamanites. Because that verse was clearly talking about ONE group, and not all blacks as a whole. Your statement is intellectually dishonest at best, and a down right lie at worst.
Hmm... that's interesting because Brigham Young used that verse on several occasions to refer to the African Race, despite it being about Lamanites.
Remember Brigham's whole “Death on the spot“ lecture for those who marry african decendents? Where do you think he got that idea?
The early saints clearly thought that lamanites were as black as africans. In fact, I remember back in my day (up hill, both ways) we had filmstrips in primary that depicted lamanites as black, with red lips and the whole tom-and-jerry style portrayal of cartoon negroes. That was in 1970.
And yes the were official filmstrips, produced by the Church. They featured a very large-headed and wide-eyed Jacob as the protagonist telling the story and you had to turn the film when the tape recorder went “beep”.
So I think you're actually the one trying to shift the issue. Throughout mormon history lamanites were as black as africans, and they were cursed and that cursing meant they were inferior humans. Marriage to them was punishable by death at one point. And it all came from scripture.
The church needs to decry the scripture that lead to such assumptions, not just state that it was all Brigham's Fault. Brigham had very few ideas of his own, and he often sourced where he got his ideas from.
Dangerous bigoted scripture is to blame, not fallible man.
That was racism, pure and simple. It is still inellectually dishonest to claim the scripture said all blacks are black because they are cursed. It says no such thing.
Here are all the comments about inferiority due to skin color lined up in humorous fashion.
"It is still inellectually dishonest to claim the scripture said all blacks are black because they are cursed. "
“And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren”
Dark skin is equated to a curse.
Brigham:
You may be too young to remember it was taught this way, but it is not I who you condemn by saying this is intellectually dishonest but the leadership of the church in the 1970's.
Again, those scriptures are saying Lamanites. Not all blacks.
My point is, that you only think that Lamanites are not the same as blacks because of your contemporary context. Brigham was quite clear, Spencer W. Kimball taught that the Native Americans became more white they more righteous they were.
To Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the host of church history the very idea that lamanites were not negro during Nephi's lifetime would have been shocking and perhaps blasphemous.
To Brigham Young, not to Joseph Smith. Brigham was racist, that is kind of an accepted fact now adays.
Book of Moses (Pearl of Great Price)
“. . . there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people . . . (Moses 7:8).”
“And . . . they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them (Moses 7:22).”
Book of Abraham (Pearl of Great Price)
“. . . from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land (Abraham 1:24).”
“Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, . . . Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, . . . but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
“Now, Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, . . . (Abraham 1:26-27).”
Do you anticipate releasing a 2nd edition of Rough Stone Rolling with improvements? The 1st edition is wonderful, but you have noted you wish you'd added a little more about certain issues.
I don't have a question, I just wanted to say that even though I disagree with some of your ideas, I genuinely enjoy reading your point of view. You're doing great work, and I hope your works influences the general LDS membership's attitudes towards exmormons.
I had some other thoughts while reading the book that I would like your opinion on. Again, page numbers in bold.
64 - Problem with Anthon's story. How could he have translated Reformed Egyptian when Egyptian had just barely been translated a few years earlier in France? Why would he lie about his abilities here when he had an otherwise upright career?
68 - Wasn't God guilty of relenting to Joseph when he kept asking to show the plates? Or is man not guilty of relenting to Satan if he just asks three times?
325 - Fanny Alger remarried, but was she ever divorced? If not, does this imply this was not a marriage? Also, how could Joseph have sealed himself to Fanny when he claims the sealing power wasn't released for some 4-5 years after their incident together?
330 - Was this a way for the leaders to try and “cash out” of their religious endeavor? More get rich quick schemes?
492 - Throughout the book he frequently dismisses negative claims as being written or quoted too late. Yet, he allows a biography written 25 years after Joseph's death to stand as near canon. Why is that?
519 - The author claims believers and non-believers would be envious of saints, but lacks evidence. Constantly on the move, loss of property, giving wives and daughters to the leader, fearful, plagued with illness, always in debt, lots of deaths due to hardship, etc... = No reason to be envious. Does he believe that has changed in later years or will change in the future?
521 - Author mentions council of the 50's original records are not available. Are they in the vault? Does the LDS church have them or were they destroyed? Either way, it doesn't offer much faith in the material. [Note, this question I believe has been answered in that Joseph Smith ordered the papers destroyed. Is this correct?]
538 - I'd argue Joseph tried to move the carthage charges because their were friendlier courts more likely to let him off, not because of fear of Carthage itself. I would argue that this was not out of fear, but because there were serveral courts with a long history of dismissing his charges out right (Springfield, Nauvoo). I base this claim off the known William Clayton journals from Nauvoo - there are several examples, but I'm referring to 12 June 1844, a Wednesday. Do you disagree with this?
552 - Early LDS Church was just like everyone else. Legal maneuvering on all sides to prevent voices from being heard, secrets, violence, illegality, and some outright lies. If their fruits define them, then their fruits aren't any better than the control group.
Question: Problem with Anthon's story. How could he have translated Reformed Egyptian when Egyptian had just barely been translated a few years earlier in France? Why would he lie about his abilities here when he had an otherwise upright career?
Answer: He could not have translated Egyptian, and certainly not “reformed Egyptian.” This story is garbled and confused in many respects, and I have found no way of straightening it out.
"This story is garbled and confused in many respects..."
Dr. Bushman, this seems a weak answer. You have looked at the witness testimonies of which there are many versions and many contradictory statements. We both know it is about as garbled and confused of a story as has ever been related (From Lucy Mack Smith saying all 8 witnessed the plates at the same time, David Whitmer saying that only 4 were present at the time, Martin Harris adding spiritual eyes to the whole of it, and Oliver Cowdery signing for everyone... etc etc.) yet you come out with a positive on that one.
There are, as far as I can tell, only three version of the Anthon story, and Anthon never crosses himself when he states he did not say any such thing to Martin Harris.
What on earth makes it so confusing and garbled compared to stories you are able to form such strong opinion on?
From the LDS Gospel Fundamentals lesson manual, chapter 26 it says:
“When we say things that are not true, we are lying. When we tell only part of the truth, we are lying. When we lead people to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”
By Church's own standard for honesty and its definition for “lying” and “not being honest”, the first vision and race articles get failing grades with many examples of lying and dishonesty.
Thanks for all your work. 1- What do you think is the churches biggest Gem ? 2- What do you think the Boulder will be that starts the avalanche for the church?
I am impressed that Richard did this AMA. Thank you Richard. I regret that I didn't know about it in time to particpate but enjoyed reading the questions and Richard's answers.
If there are no such things as souls (and thus no afterlives)-- would you want to know or would you prefer to keep your faith?
Richard L. Bushman, Professor Emeritus of History, Columbia University, and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling gave this introduction at a CES seminar at BYU in July 2008. It's interesting reading. Richard Bushman presents: The Revived Latter-Day Saint
RSS
