- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I normally don’t read books that are more than a couple hundred pages, but in this case, I read all of Rough Stone Rolling. Not for detail, but for concepts. I would like to share a few reflections:
1.
Quote:This book helped me understand who we are as a religionfar better than any other experience I’ve had in the church. I understand the emphasis on personal revelation, obedience, on the temple covenants regarding evil-speaking, councils, the origins of plural marriage etcetera. I understand where the leadership worship tends to come from. I knew all along many of these ideas were in the scriptures etcetera, and that JS was the primary author, but I saw how these ideals tended to develop in response to the challenges he faced as a leader and the culture of his time. Perhaps not necessarily revelatory, but maybe revelatory — but definitely triggered by the challenges of leadership in JS’s day.
2.
Quote:I finally understand why the saints were persecuted so much before their trek west.My belief, for now, is the fact that JS tried to meld religious authority with secular authority. Taken with his various perceived “private armies” such as the Danites, or the Nauvoo Legion, as well as his dress in military uniform, I see why people were concerned about so many Mormons in their midst. Taken with his policy of gathering Israel together, diluting local voter’s influence due to the majorities or near majorities of Mormons in voting — there was a lot of fear about what I will call Mormon imperialism. The strangeness of the beliefs, along with plural marriage also tended to alientate the members of the local population who did not join the church.
Lack of willingness for state or federal authorities to help the Mormons was a contributing factor as well. And the democratic ideals that were particularly popular in JS’s day allowed majorities to trample on the rights of minorities. It was as if democracy was on a higher plane than the law.
Also, the republicanism of the early American’s ran counter to the apparent “kingship” of Joseph Smith. Americans had just fought a war with the British Imperialists. So movements that looked imperial were not viewed kindly.
3.
Quote:I understand why Britain latched on to Mormonism so well.The class structure there oppressed many intelligent people. Gathering in America, where you could be free of that structure, see financial reward that matched effort, and get land was probably very attractive. Plus, you had a religious community to receive you that you trusted. No wonder people flocked to “Zion”.
4.
Quote:I found it puzzling how apostles could be relieved of office, and reinstated, or excommunicated and reinstated to positions of authority. Never would happen in our day — would Paul H. Dunn ever become a GA after his discipline? I think not. SW Kimball indicated in the Miracle of Forgiveness that anyone who committed heinous sins would never be a stake president or Bishop.
5.
Quote:Quote:I felt a bond with Orson Pratt
who came home from a mission far away for a long time, and found JS had added Pratt’s wife to his plural wife contingent. That would REALLY have bothered me. And to boot, when Pratt objected to JS, JS had him excommunicated!!!! That smacked of exactly how I feel as member of the church and the injustices I have faced.
Even more puzzling is how Pratt was reinstated, took his wife back, and then got himself 3 more wives afterwards. The recapitulations of so many people were puzzling to me. What went on in the background that caused them to do that? Was Joseph cutting deals with these men to regain their loyalties, and prevent further witnesses in court that could testify against him?
6.
Quote:I think JS had talent for making people believeHis success in getting people to believe his stories may have been due to this talent. He showed it early on, with the way people repeatedly believed he could show them where buried treasure was. As Bushman said, JS had a knack for “making religion”. I think his ability to convince others was part of his success. Plus, he had organizational powers that created a unique organization that persisted after his death, in spite of lack of succession planning.
Quote:Testimony effect?
Not sure. Halfway through I was pretty much convinced JS was a fraud. But as I read through the rest of the book, I came back to neutral or slightly positive toward JS as having some form of divine commission. Still not sure.
Certainly not willing to go back to my former TBM self, that is for sure.
Quote:What was the impact of Rough Stone Rolling on you if/when you read it?
Only have a few minutes… SilentDawning wrote:who came home from a mission far away for a long time, and found JS had added Pratt’s wife to his plural wife contingent. That would REALLY have bothered me. And to boot, when Pratt objected to JS, JS had him excommunicated!!!! That smacked of exactly how I feel as member of the church and the injustices I have faced.Even more puzzling is how Pratt was reinstated, took his wife back, and then got himself 3 more wives afterwards. The recapitulations of so many people were puzzling to me. What went on in the background that caused them to do that? Was Joseph cutting deals with these men to regain their loyalties, and prevent further witnesses in court that could testify against him?
Is this the wife that later left Orson in Utah and Apostatized? I can’t remember.
SilentDawning wrote:Not sure. Halfway through I was pretty much convinced JS was a fraud. But as I read through the rest of the book, I came back to neutral or slightly positive toward JS as having some form of divine commission. Still not sure.Certainly not willing to go back to my former TBM self, that is for sure.
Bro. bushman once lamented that despite all the people that raved about what a great job he had done with the book – nobody seemed to be joining the church over it. That he had failed to give them a “Joseph that they could believe in.” In some ways perhaps a historically accurate human approach to portraying JS is not as compelling as the vision of a super-prophet descending from the mountain with commandments carved by the finger of God. Perhaps JS is not really to blame for the legandary/ nigh untouchable status the church bestowed upon him. We twisted his image, his experiences, and his legacy to suit our purposes until he might not even recognise himself.
Roy wrote:nobody seemed to be joining the church over it. That he had failed to give them a “Joseph that they could believe in.”
This makes me wonder…in religion and God and things spiritual in nature, what helps us BELIEVE…do we want the historical narrative and scientific explanations for all things that happen, or is life taste better seasoned with mystical and hopeful (and truthful) inspiring stories to help us raise our sights above this mortal existence?
I’m not suggesting we should be gullible and believe anything from anyone and stick our heads in the sand. I’m just saying that perhaps Joseph Campbell knew what he was talking about, and that allegory and mystical experiences have their place in society.
Quote:“People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.”
― Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth
RSR is good for historical information. It helped me calm some angst and questions, so I could get back to faith and what I believe with a different perspective on Joseph Smith. But it did not give me a testimony of things, it did not inspire me to become closer to God. It simply was needed to address historical topics. But it does not replace the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants for my faith.
Quote:Is this the wife that later left Orson in Utah and Apostatized? I can’t remember.[/quote
I don’t know. I am thinking of doing more reading on this man. I might learn something that might help me.
Quote:Bro. bushman once lamented that despite all the people that raved about what a great job he had done with the book – nobody seemed to be joining the church over it. That he had failed to give them a “Joseph that they could believe in.” In some ways perhaps a historically accurate human approach to portraying JS is not as compelling as the vision of a super-prophet descending from the mountain with commandments carved by the finger of God. Perhaps JS is not really to blame for the legandary/ nigh untouchable status the church bestowed upon him. We twisted his image, his experiences, and his legacy to suit our purposes until he might not even recognise himself.
I don’t fault Bushman for that. There is enough faith-promoting material in our Sunday lessons and correlated historical records. Bushman’s book may well target the person who has heard enough of that and is no longer satisfied, or the person who has been “tainted” by the history the church kept from us before the Internet and wants to know the truth.
If Bushman wanted a book for converting non-members, I think Truth Restored does the trick given the church’s approach to its problematic history.
I will say this — when I read RSR, I couldnt’ help but think what a sorry excuse for church history that book, Truth Restored, represents. It was a joke to me. Particularly how(if memory serves) they write off Joseph’s imprisonment in Carthage as the result of a “trumped up charge”. It wasn’t a trumped up charge — he destroyed a printing press and violated the constitutional principle of “freedom of speech”. Even without the violation of that principle, he destroyed someone’s property. These are not “trumped up charges” — they were valid charges in my view.
SilentDawning wrote:“trumped up charge
I remember Hawkgrrrl doing a Mormon Dictionary and defining “so-called”
I was something to this effect –
So-called: I sneer at whatever word follows. As in “So-called feminists” or “So-called intellectuals”
You could say the same for the adjective “trumped up.”
Isn’t that what every defendant says about the chages laid against him?
Heber13 wrote:This makes me wonder…in religion and God and things spiritual in nature, what helps us BELIEVE…do we want the historical narrative and scientific explanations for all things that happen, or is life taste better seasoned with mystical and hopeful (and truthful) inspiring stories to help us raise our sights above this mortal existence?
Yeah I think you are on to something there Heber. Many that lose faith in JS still cling to faith in JC. I am not in any way trying to claim that Jesus had multiple wives or anything – just that the stories of His virgin birth, walking on water, and raising from the dead are every bit as fantadtical (more so even) than anything said about Joseph. I believe that individuals in this situation derive much value and benefit from their continued belief. IOW, “life [can] taste better seasoned with mystical and hopeful inspiring stories to help us raise our sights above this mortal existence.”
Here were my thoughts when I read it: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5814 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5814 I don’t have much faith in JS as a prophet or at least not in the way he is portrayed in our church. If Bushman expressed the sentiments he did about his book, it’s that he is fighting an uphill battle, he is attempting to take out some of the fantasticness and literalism out of the current narrative, but the LDS Church just doesn’t seem willing to go along.
I thought it was an excellent read, worth it if you want to read and learn more about JS.
Heber13 wrote:This makes me wonder…in religion and God and things spiritual in nature, what helps us BELIEVE…do we want the historical narrative and scientific explanations for all things that happen, or is life taste better seasoned with mystical and hopeful (and truthful) inspiring stories to help us raise our sights above this mortal existence?
For me, this question is just as easily phrased “would we rather have our belief system based on sand, or a rock?”. I know some things are easier to believe than others, but when you have to go to MSU (Make Stuff Up) in order to believe, then I’m out — particularly when 10% of your gross and most of you spare time is at stake. I still maintain that the church is in the truth business. And that means, it has to be true for me to believe it — plain and simple.
I liked SunBelt Red’s comments in his link above. Sunbelt, you came away with similar impressions as I did. Your comment about the skeleton that JS said was a Nephite Warrior. It seems he was able and willing to make absolute statements like that when the truth was unprovable. At the time, there probably was no Carbon 14 or DNA testing that would identify if the person really was of a certain lineage. It made it easy to make claims like JS did that shored up people’s faith in his stories.
The three witnesses sort of baffled me. Not sure how he got all those people to put their names next to the statement they actually saw the plates. Did JS actually have some plates made up that he showed people, and used for translation? But that were not really old plates? For example, there were the Kinderhook plates, which someone created. Is it possible JS had something made up that he could show his friends who had no way of verifying their source?
Anyway. I share SunBelt Red’s feelings that RSR didn’t seal the deal that JS is not a prophet. Parts make you wonder if if he was.
SilentDawning wrote:For me, this question is just as easily phrased “would we rather have our belief system based on sand, or a rock?”. I know some things are easier to believe than others, but when you have to go to MSU (Make Stuff Up) in order to believe, then I’m out — particularly when 10% of your gross and most of you spare time is at stake. I still maintain that the church is in the truth business. And that means, it has to be true for me to believe it — plain and simple.
Religion is belief in the unknowable/unprovable. You can’t have a religion based only on stuff you can prove or it would instead be science. But there is more to life than things that can be proven and quantified. There is beauty and art, community and family, religion and meaning. You can take the church of the Jedi Knights for example. Many would mock their efforts because it so obviously based on a fictional story, but if one of these Jedi truly lives his religion why should it be so different from what we do and believe. If the script for star wars was written long ago and found in a clay pot in a cave somewhere then it would be just as respectable as anything else.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.