- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know there are some other threads on Rough Stone Rolling, but wanted to have my own 🙂 .I just finished RSR over the weekend. I started reading it about 5 years ago and got part way through but there was just too much information to process and too many things that just blew my mind and I was not ready to really dig into it. So I have had it sitting next to my bed for at least 5 years, always lurking but I haven’t dared open it up.
But as many others have experienced, at some point the shelf gets heavy and I started to face up to my concerns and doubts I decided to take that book off it and I’m glad I did.
Here are a few of my thoughts about it. I may go back and post some direct quotes later on but have been thinking about it and wanted to get some things on paper.
1) Bushman does a great job at adding context to Joseph’s and his family’s life. One thing I couldn’t shake was that during the time Joseph was questioning religion, many others were as well. And Joseph was not the only one who claimed to have a vision or message. My thoughts are that perhaps Joseph was not the only one that God was trying to speak to, He was sending messages to anyone that was asking (as pointed out in the verse that Joseph read in James). Why would Joseph be the only one entitled to receive a message? IMHO, I don’t think he would have been, but the Church that he started has made it much farther than many (all?) of the others from that same time period.
2) I have a hard time with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I also have a very hard time believing that Joseph made up the BOM. He was extremely intelligent but I just don’t think he could have made it up. It is one of the few things that Emma had a firm testimony of even after everything that happened. Her description of how Joseph dictated the BOM is amazing. I don’t really know, but I lean toward the mystical/revelation position on that
3) The way Joseph was able to democratize revelation was genius. Perhaps it was his genius, but providing a way for people to trust their own spiritual experiences, allowing people to feel that access to divinity was so far out the normal for that time, and it really was the way the Church was able to continue without him
4) There was a moment during Zion’s camp where they came upon a skeleton and Joseph launched into an explanation of how that skeleton had been a Nephite warrior in the great last battle of the BOM. I was struck by this as a specific instance when Joseph was obviously making something up. If it has been true, I’m sure BYU archeologists would have already excavated all of Missouri. It indicated to me that not everything he said was true, and that he could embellish and make up a story.
5) After Zion’s camp has been an utter failure and disappointment there is a steamboat accident and a man that had threatened Joseph died. Joseph was actually a bit gleeful because he was upset and frustrated by what happened and angry at the Missourians. It made me like Joseph more, because he really was a rough stone rolling.
6) Joseph had a big heart. It was surprising to learn what a temper he had and how he hated to be challenged, but he was quick to forgive. I imagine it was difficult to have this great big vision in your mind of what you are supposed to accomplish and you have almost nothing to work with. Most of the converts are poor, county politics is actually political, attempting to maintain control of the church but also teach a broad theology; I think he was lonely in his quest and when his friends challenged him or hurt him it hurt him. But he was quick to forgive and I love him for that.
7) Leadership – Joseph had big visions, but the Kirtland Bank, Zions Camp, the Danites – I have a hard time reconciling him being a Prophet at those times. It appeared to me that his endeavors failed and then he made up a reason why and attributed it to God. That’s just my take from the reading.
7) Polygamy and Polyandry…no thanks. As others have said here in the forum, lots of Prophets through time have done things they probably should not have done. It doesn’t mean that some of the things they did do were not Prophetic, but it does make it hard sometimes for us to figure out what those were.
Overall, I don’t know that it swayed me one way or the other from my current thoughts which is that I think Joseph was probably a prophet. I think he would be appalled by the way we hero worship him and whitewash his history. He did some things that are amazing that I can’t explain and IMO he has had an amazing impact on religious thought. I’m glad that my story is intertwined with his even in a small way, even though I don’t agree with everything he said or did.
Opinions are my own.
Good thoughts! SunbeltRed wrote:1) Bushman does a great job at adding context to Joseph’s and his family’s life. One thing I couldn’t shake was that during the time Joseph was questioning religion, many others were as well. And Joseph was not the only one who claimed to have a vision or message. My thoughts are that perhaps Joseph was not the only one that God was trying to speak to, He was sending messages to anyone that was asking (as pointed out in the verse that Joseph read in James). Why would Joseph be the only one entitled to receive a message? IMHO, I don’t think he would have been, but the Church that he started has made it much farther than many (all?) of the others from that same time period.
Yup, it was a period of great experimentation. JS’s vision wouldn’t have been particularly noteworthy at all if it had remained as a personal communication of comfort and sin remittance.
I’m no expert but I understand that the SDA’s, JW’s, Amish, Quakers and more all came from this era. JS seems to have coopted certain religious ideas and made them his own. Hebraic origin of American Indians – the first steps and ordinances of the gospel – ideas present in the three kingdom model – masonic temple rituals – etc.
My own reading of RSR is that JS was very much a product of his time and place and that seeped into everything that he did. Perhaps we expect too much of prophets to be otherworldly – as though they cannot have a thought in their heads that didn’t originate from God. For me the trick comes in finding value in his works even assuming that JS didn’t present anything original – just repackaged stuff that was already floating out in the religious world at his time. If I am being honest with myself in my search for that value, I then begin to see such value from all sorts of sources. Dahli Lama, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Pope Francis, and so much more. Perhaps prophets abound and inspiration floods the earth. Interesting perspective.
SBR, Thanks for sharing. You make some good points that I enjoyed reading. I won’t comment on each of them, but here are a couple of my thoughts.
SunbeltRed wrote:
I have a hard time with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I also have a very hard time believing that Joseph made up the BOM.
Agreed – for me there seems to be just enough divine, or maybe just the unexplainable, that lets me accept the BOM as scripture. I don’t think the BOM is literal, but I think it has many good teachings and some parts are fun to read. I’m glad we have the BOM.
SunbeltRed wrote:
Polygamy and Polyandry…no thanks. As others have said here in the forum, lots of Prophets through time have done things they probably should not have done. It doesn’t mean that some of the things they did do were not Prophetic, but it does make it hard sometimes for us to figure out what those were.
For me it’s not that they’ve done things that they probably shouldn’t have done – it’s that they’ve done things they definitely shouldn’t have done. My hang up with polygamy is that it’s so far past the “grey area” that even a prophet should know it’s unacceptable.
My high level takeaway of Rough Stone Rolling is that it’s ok to delve into church history, question it, even to say significant swaths of church history aren’t necessarily ordained of God. I wish more LDS would read it.
This is my problem — when I joined the church, it was during the period when there was no internet, Truth Restored (the book) was the only source of church history I knew of (and quite whitewashed), and I believed it all. So, to learn that parts of it were made up, that objectionable parts were hidden, that there was polyandry (even plural marriage was a bit of a stretch) makes me question the whole thing.
How do you go on believing in the gospel as currently taught and believed in our church on Sunday when you realize so much of it is hidden, some made up? Doesn’t it make it hard to believe in the “one true church” concept and the “prophet will never lead the church astray” concept?
[note: you can still relate to the organization for what it is today, in spite of the history — still attracts largely good people, good youth programs in certain wards, promotes clean living, and strong families. But it means looking at it more as any other temporal organization].
SilentDawning wrote:How do you go on believing in the gospel as currently taught and believed in our church on Sunday when you realize so much of it is hidden, some made up? Doesn’t it make it hard to believe in the “one true church” concept and the “prophet will never lead the church astray” concept?
[note: you can still relate to the organization for what it is today, in spite of the history — still attracts largely good people, good youth programs in certain wards, promotes clean living, and strong families. But it means looking at it more as any other temporal organization].
(Apologies, thread jacking a bit here)
Yes it does make it hard to believe as currently taught and the one true church concept. And fortunately (and I say fortunately because this whole experience has been very liberating for me) it has helped me arrive at a new place with my faith. I still doubt as much as before, but I don’t feel weighed down by it anywhere close to the same extent as the past. It has also caused me to really evaluate why I am a member of the church, what I want out of it, and why. So possibly like many here, the “One True Church” idea is gone for me right now and probably to never be recovered. But as I have waded further into the unknown, it has made me appreciate more what the LDS church is, can be, and how I can be of some service within it.
And it has given me a sense of agency I had not experienced before in regards to the Church. I am there now because I want to be, not because I feel guilty or shamed or coerced into it. I also feel that my love for my fellow humans has been expanded greatly as well, I think because I felt so confused and ashamed for so long about my doubts that I just want people to be happy and whatever the path is that helps them get there, I hope they find it (I feel like that is what God would want as well).
Having recently read The God Who Weeps, there are some key insights Joseph had, beautiful ideas that went against the grain of religious thought during his time. I really love those ideas, they bring me peace and uplift my faith and I appreciate Joseph for bringing those to the larger religious world.
I like your comment that the realization that it’s not all it claims to be, or that the general membership believes, has forced you to think. Think about what you want to get out of the experience. I personally want my daughter to stay strong in it so we don’t confuse her with a different religion. I want to engage with it enough to keep my marriage together, and beyond that I don’t really expect, or want much from it anymore.
I’ve learned that the church can make me just as miserablem with occasional flashes of hapiness — so the idea that the church and gospel (as taught by LDS) makes you happy isn’t a recipe for happiness. The recipe is found in living in the moment, serving other people in ways you find meaningful (and that doesn’t mean always in the church). I feel happiness really comes from being able to discipline your mind to calm your spirit.
SBR, I am going to piggy back on your thread. I just received my copy of RSR and delved into it with a vengeance. I have very little time for personal reading because I have required course reading for my degree, so my Christmas break is it. It is long, and the print is tiny 😯 . I found much the same as you did, but I was honestly hoping it would help me to deal with my doubts. It hasn’t.I also noted the “made up” story of the dead man, and I feel like Bushman glossed over the polygamy/polyandry part. Someone on here said they felt Bushman was very even-handed in his treatment of JS, but I got the feeling Bushman was rationalizing JS’s behavior somewhat. The idea of “translating”, without having the books open, or even near; the Book of Abraham; even the “continual revelation”, when JS was in a meeting and would just start saying things as though The Lord was speaking.
I too agree that some of these things are hard to explain away, and probably have a spiritual explanation, but we are still stuck with the question of what is from God and what is from JS or BY, or whomever. I am not sure that in this life we will ever really know.
I agree there were times when Bushman appeared to be rationalizing JS’s behavior. I guess I gave Bushman that bit of leeway (call it willing suspension of criticality) because he’s a former Stake President, TR-holder, and active member of the church. We’ve seen other people, like Grant Palmer write books that have ended in discipline from the church. I took those parts with a grain of salt — but appreciated how candid he was about a number of aspects of the history that I wasn’t aware of. I could believe that at least, the work wasn’t anti-Mormon. For being a faithful Mormon, I think Bushman did a pretty good job of letting us know about the history.
I agree that it didnt’ resolve any doubt for me. But I still maintain — the church is in the “truth business” as I call it. And knowing the truth, without all the faith-promoting sanitization you read about in Our Heritage (Truth Restored) was liberating for me.
And guess what, I actually had thoughts that the only way I’d really know about the truth of things was to pray about it again. I’ve started praying more as a result of the book, as it underscored the idea that we really don’t know. Although I don’t trust spiritual impressions as much as I used to, I believe the DO motivate us to action and commitment, and in one sense, they are all we have really.
Eternity4me wrote:SBR, I am going to piggy back on your thread. I just received my copy of RSR and delved into it with a vengeance. I have very little time for personal reading because I have required course reading for my degree, so my Christmas break is it. It is long, and the print is tiny
😯 . I found much the same as you did, but I was honestly hoping it would help me to deal with my doubts. It hasn’t.I also noted the “made up” story of the dead man, and I feel like Bushman glossed over the polygamy/polyandry part. Someone on here said they felt Bushman was very even-handed in his treatment of JS, but I got the feeling Bushman was rationalizing JS’s behavior somewhat. The idea of “translating”, without having the books open, or even near; the Book of Abraham; even the “continual revelation”, when JS was in a meeting and would just start saying things as though The Lord was speaking.
I too agree that some of these things are hard to explain away, and probably have a spiritual explanation, but we are still stuck with the question of what is from God and what is from JS or BY, or whomever. I am not sure that in this life we will ever really know.
Yeah, I felt the same way about Bushman somewhat rationalizing JS’s behavior, and like SD gave him the benefit of the doubt. It is a difficult position to argue for the historicity of the BofM thus the idea that translation happened without having to actually translate the plates. It’s not a view I endorse, but I appreciate Bushman for being honest about the events and since we don’t know what actually happened, and even thought I don’t come to the same conclusion as Bushman, I find his view point totally valid. I really really like (“love”) the Bushman’s and have a deep appreciation for all they have done to create change within the historical narrative of the church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.