Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Already Gone ( )
Date: September 23, 2014 01:40PM

Bushman get all the dots that lead one to believe the church is a fraud, but he never quite connects them. I am only up to Moroni (or was it Nephi *snicker snicker*) Here are the dots he gives that show that the church is not true and show that evil apostates are, in fact, correct on things.

1- Many versions of the first vision. Bushman says that he initially took the vision to mean that he was cleansed of sin. Right. I don't know how "initially" is 12 years after the fact in his first documentation of it.

2- He states that Joseph wasn't on the census in 1820, probably cause he was off helping his family by being a hired help. Then a few pages later, he describes the first vision "probably" being in early 1820. He totally forgot that dot, didn't he? If he wasn't home, how could he have gone to the sacred grove to pray at the time he said he did in the "official" version?

3- Joseph not being home is more likely when you read about the Smith's family issues. They moved to Palmyra the year before, cleared the land, and built a tiny log cabin for the 10 of them. They must have felt cramped, because in 1822, the man they were buying the land from died. Instead of spending the money that was for the land, they went and spent the money to build a bigger house. They were financially hurt and almost forclosed on when the land payment actually came due.

This shows me that if Joseph had a chance to be gone in 1820, he would have. In fact, his parents would have encouraged it. There was no room! And they needed him to help earn money for the family.

4- He admits that Joseph's persecution complex was probably blown up in his mind during the period after the first vision, when he said everyone hated him because of his vision.

5- He says that the men who wanted the plates were his treasure hunting buddies who thought that they were entitled to a share of his findings - not people driven by Satan to get rid of them.

6- He quotes people in the 1800s who said that they saw God and talked to him and God said that no church was true. In fact, it was pretty common. Bushman states that this softened Joseph Sr. to believe Joseph's true vision, not that Joseph just copied other visions that people had and conned a gullible father.

7- He states that he stopped treasure hunting, but he was hounded to continue. He indirectly admits that he was a leader in treasure hunting by saying that he backed off from treasure hunting, and didn't assume a leadership position anymore. It seems like he actually did continue to associate with them afterwards. Bushman admits Issac Hale didn't like Joseph because of the treasure digging scam, not his visions.

8- Joseph Smith Sr was a visionary man and always seemed to have dreams / visions. He states that Lucy's recount of the Lehi's dream as Joseph Sr's is wrong simply because she wrote it 30 years after it happened, but it is proof that she felt her husband was Joseph Jr.'s successor.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Already Gone ( )
Date: September 23, 2014 02:23PM

any thoughts?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caedmon ( )
Date: September 23, 2014 03:29PM

Bushman is the NOM version of Mormon apologists. But like all Mormon apologists, his message boils down to: "I'm a smart guy and I still believe. What's wrong with you?"

RSR is not about telling the truth. It's about giving a dead-virus inoculation to TBMs so that they can claim to "know all about that stuff" without shattering their fragile testimonies.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: TheOtherHeber ( )
Date: September 23, 2014 03:50PM

Bushman shifts the definition of prophet, revelation and "true" Church is order to fit historical facts and still be able to go to Church on sundays. He has done a great AMA session and answered many questions from former mormons. Mormonthink has a transcription. He essentialy likes the Church because it helps him to be the man he wants to be. Very utilitarian. He also confessed feeling disconfort at hearing crap about Church history at Sunday School, but said he has found it's not very productive to correct and explain the details.

I wonder why...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: already gone ( )
Date: September 24, 2014 12:53PM

It must kill him - having all the answers, but not willing to say that the church is a fraud.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rt ( )
Date: September 24, 2014 01:16PM

I haven't read the book and I doubt that I ever will. Guys like Bushman and Givens are mediocre scholars who would never amount to much in the real world but who are worshipped by the self-proclaimed "intellectual Mormon" crowd. If they would connect the dots, they would be just like any other community college history or philosophy professor.

Not that there's anything wrong with that but I guess there is something to say for traveling the world saving people's testimonies and feeling important.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **   ******    ********  **     **  **        
  **   **   **    **      **     ***   ***  **    **  
   ** **    **            **     **** ****  **    **  
    ***     **   ****     **     ** *** **  **    **  
   ** **    **    **      **     **     **  ********* 
  **   **   **    **      **     **     **        **  
 **     **   ******       **     **     **        **