Debunking the Debunking of Rough Stone Rolling

 

The Stoddards trying to read Rough Stone Rolling

    The last time I discussed Rough Stone Rolling on social media I received many thoughtless drive by posts. I ignored them at the time because I don’t want to reward lazy thinking. But I suspected at the time that their link contained very poor reasoning and after a bit of examination I was correct. This post show the many flaws in the debunking site devoted to Rough Stone Rolling. The Stoddards, writing for the Joseph Smith Foundation misrepresent Bushman’s work by relying on sloppy and sometimes malicious editing to the point that we lose a true picture of Joseph Smith as a flawed but still impressive prophet. (All quotes from the debunking website unless otherwise noted.) 

    The first two complaints about RSR had no citations:

    They object that Bushman supposedly said Joseph was involved in ritual magic who used peep stones to find treasure.

    If they want to debunk a book and can’t do better than a social media post I see no need to respond. The next items had footnotes:

    They contend RSR says Joseph Smith suffered from “treasure-seeking greed,” “anger,” and “easily-bruised pride,”

    Greed is simply the implication of Moroni’s warning to Joseph, which is canonized in church history. Bushman cited Moroni’s words along with Oliver Cowdery and Lucy Mack Smith saying Joseph immediately thought of financial concerns when seeing the plates: [Moroni told] me that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This he forbade me, saying that I must have no other object in view in getting the plates but to glorify God, and must not be influenced by any other motive than that of building his kingdom; otherwise I could not get them. Js History 1:40, 53.

    Joseph’s anger is seen in his own letters such as the one Bushman quoted on page 187 of RSR and cited in fn 44. The Stoddards seem to be under the impression that Joseph never had any emotion. But we don’t feel Moroni is any less of a man that could shake the foundations of hell because he showed anger, and we shouldn’t be offended over Joseph’s.

    Bushman isn’t insulting Joseph by describing his personality. This is a common complaint in just about every criticism of Bushman, and I will give same answer. Studying everything about Joseph, and not the whitewashed sanitized version of him will lead to stronger testimonies that can withstand new and unexpected information, because it already fits in the paradigm of the awesome and imperfect prophet.

    Getting back to Smith’s anger, we have many accounts of Joseph’s anger because his admirers shared these stories to show how great he was despite his flaws. In the example the Stoddards cite on page 249 and 250 of RSR they make it seem like Bushman simply denigrates the prophet. But when you put the statement in context, Bushman discusses Josephs anger, but also his leadership skills, and how the high council sided with Joseph because “they sensed that their prophet had a right to rebuke his followers, fiercely if necessary. Their dismay at his anger was balanced by their love of his good nature.”

    There is an irony here, as quoting outrageous information out of context is an anti-Mormon method. I find it very sad and saying that the Stoddards have to do the same shady tactic to try and slam Bushman. That should tell you how much to trust their quotes and videos, and why you should read Bushman, and pour through his citations for yourself.

    “Easily bruised pride” is also taken out of context. It is even worse this time because they ignore, literally, half the sentence that describes Joseph’s desire for peace. To start with, it isn’t insulting Joseph to admit he struggled with the man he is, with the man he wants to be. Elder Uctdorf said that a hypocrite is someone who falls short of the person they want to be, and we are all hypocrites. As a former marine that came from a home with an angry and abusive father, I know how hard it is to break out of patterns and respond in a more Christlike fashion. The supposed insult from Bushman, when put back into context on page 295, actually endears us to Joseph:

Unfortunately for his peace of mind, Joseph’s angry responses conflicted with the harmony and brotherhood he prized…The culture of honor moved him to contend with the offending parties to protect his easily bruised pride, even though all the while he wanted peace. He hated contention and tried to make peace by mutual confessions and brotherly arbitration….By 1836, when he made peace with his antagonists, the meaning of Zion to a man of his temperament was clear. To live in harmony with his brothers and sisters, as the revelations required, was reason to rejoice.

Harmony was valued in all the church’s councils. The Kirtland High Council’s hearings examined the attitudes of offending parties as well as their actions. The minutes refer to “the spirit of meekness,” or “feelings of the heart,” or the “spirit of justification and pride.”

    Not only is the above based in primary sources, so Bushman is not simply making up insults to Joseph’s character, but in context, Joseph appears much like the rest of us. He is trying to rise above his nature to live in harmony. I find my testimony and even love for Joseph strengthened after reading this.

    Joseph possessed “outrageous confidence.” 

    I take that as a compliment to Joseph. The world and the restored church needed a prophet with unbounded confidence in his mission to restore the gospel, bring forth new scripture, and translate previously untouchable ones like the Bible all while gathering his people, building zion and temples and withstanding endless defections, legal attacks, persecution and dislocation. I argue that anyone without “outrageous confidence” wouldn’t have been as successful as Joseph.

    Joseph “[f]rom time to time drank too much,” 

    The footnotes for this source show a variety of conflicting sources. It’s about a paragraph long and I highly recommend you read it on page 43. But without getting off into the weeds, it can easily be among the sins Joseph himself alluded to in his history when he said: I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. JS History 1:28.

    Of course, even if he did drink, so what? The prophet Noah in the Bible was found drunk and naked! The Word of Wisdom wasn’t given until a decade later and wasn’t enforced strictly until about a century after that. Prophets aren’t perfect, especially when Joseph himself says, canonized in scripture, that he fell into various misdemeanor sins in his youth.

    Joseph grew up with an “oft-defeated, unmoored father”—a father who “partially abdicated family leadership.”

    It is pretty common knowledge that Joseph Sr. had a great deal of hardships during his life. Joseph. Sr. wasn’t the prophet and he admitted he made many mistakes in life. The second statement misquotes Bushman who says Joseph Sr. may have abdicated leadership. And Bushman says that after quoting Joseph Sr. himself: I have not always set the example before my family that I ought (pg. 42).

    As a parent I can appreciate the humble admission. Joseph Sr. did what most parents do, and he wondered if he was doing a good job and felt badly that he couldn’t be more for his children.

    This is another out of context misquote from the Joseph Smith Foundation and this one might be the worst. They took something that was equivocal, (“may have”) made it a definitive statement, and then failed to quote the primary source, straight from Joseph Sr’s mouth where he admitted his failings when it was literally quoted right next to the supposedly insulting sentence. That is so deliberately edited to give an impression the author didn’t intend it seems deceptive to me. They deliberately want you to hate RSR (so they can hawk their books a second later) and have to mangle their quotes of Bushman to do it.

    There are more quotes from various discussions of RSR from Bushman and anti-Mormons but I don’t feel the need to make this post any longer by quoting them. Probably because those quotes are selectively edited like their other quotes. But more importantly, they don’t change any of the points I made above. The common complaint from the Stoddards and the JSF is that a Joseph with flaws is damaging to testimonies and insulting to Joseph. As I demonstrated above, studying Joseph carefully, including his flaws, makes him more relatable and appealing. I felt this as I read RSR and compiled this post.

    More importantly, I’ve said many times the only testimonies damaged by a more realistic picture of Joseph are those who believe in a perfect Joseph Smith of their imagination. Some are so ensconced in their imaginations about Joseph Smith they can’t even read books like RSR. That is so astoundingly small minded, and refusing to learn is far more damaging attitude than anything Bushman can say or write. If your brittle testimony can’t handle new information, you’ll still get the new information eventually, but you’ll have no mechanisms for how to faithfully incorporate that new knowledge into a faithful view of the prophet. That’s why so many people are overthrown by a reddit complied, dumb big list of stale criticisms. (The CES letter.) If you’ve always studied the real (and still awesome) Joseph, you’ll have a much greater ability to accept new information. The mention of a peep stone or treasure digging won’t send you into a faithless spiral, or hyper aggressive defensive response that is built upon sand.

    Rough Stone Rolling is far superior to the “debunking RSR” website. The answer is obviously provided by Bushman’s superior primary source analysis, as the Joseph Smith Foundation has to do the opposite, rip quotes out of context with highly suspicious editing to strengthen the animosity against Bushman and support an inferior fantasy about Joseph.

I work as a freelance author. Providing ad free, quality research takes time. If found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of my books linked in the top left. 

Extirpative War Contrasting with the Book of Mormon

Seeking evidence for The Book of Mormon through parallels is a double edged sword.[1]In the search for tighter methodological controls a third variable is needed. Instead of A is similar to B, as most comparisons go, we need A is more similar to B than C.

In seeking this additional variable John Grenier's First Way of War is incredibly useful.[2] In this book he describes a way of war beyond the normal conventions. In fact he uses the term Petite Guerre which acts as a synonym for irregular warfare. This included extirpative war making, which Grenier describes as warfare "centered often on individual action, focused primarily on...fields, food supplies, and civilian populations."[3] This way of war specifically avoided what we could call standard battles.

We can then take this way of war and compare it to the militarized periods of Smith's life that I have previously discussed.[4] In the Mormon War we find an example of these extirpative tactics. The time period 1837-1838 is between the time period that Grenier outlined, 1607-1814, and the brutal irregular war the Missouri witnessed during the American Civil War 1861-1865. This is one more research topic that I wish to explore in the future and will keep you updated.

Dealing with The Book of Mormon, we have now have our contrasting variable which solidifies ancient parallels. In my research the Book of Mormon features a focus on strategy and tactics between organized armies of men that seek decisive battle. While there are elements of irregular warfare within the book, the narrative and their society seemed focused on regular warfare. This is in stark contrast to warfare in Smith's day which often focused on destructive war against civilian populations and property, conducted by small bands of irregular soldiers.

This is a rough draft of an research topic I hope to pursue in the future. Between Chinese classes, preparing for graduate school, and familial obligations I am sorry to say I can't offer you more. I hope you enjoy and I look forward to your comments.
************
Sources:

1. William Hamblin, "Sharper Than a Two-edged Sword," Sunstone, December 1991, 33-61.
2. John Grenier, The First Way of War: American War Making On the Frontier London: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
3. Ibid., 13.
4. See "The Military Mind of Joseph Smith", posted on this blog and The Millennial Star

The Military Mind of Joseph Smith

There are many things wrong with the natural explanation of the Book of Mormon's origin. However a relatively undeveloped theme is the correlation, or lack thereof, between the military themes in the Book of Mormon and Smith's life. This post briefly addresses the topic while calling for greater research into this theme.

A brief perusal of this site should give you an indication of the myriad military themes the Book of Mormon contains. The list of topics on the left side of your screen contains strategy, tactics, Western military theorists, Classical Chinese military theorists, army composition, naval warfare, and logistics. Under the natural explanation for the rise of the Book of Mormon we must conclude that Joseph Smith made up these many military themes based on his extensive frontier library, (including an untranslated Karl Von Clausewitz). According to one theory, Joseph Smith had enough knowledge to borrow snippets from: Caesar, Frontinus, Procupus, multiple Irish Legends, The Venerable Bede, Jonathon Swift, Vegetius, Sunzi, Wu Chi, Emperor Maurice, Moorish Legend, the Irish Book of Invasions, The Aeneid by Virgil, Roman Legend, Plutarch, Polybius, Livy, Cincinnatus, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Augustine, Eusebius, Tacitus, The Illiad by Homer, Sallust, Thuycdides, and Herodatus. Please see this link for more and this for a much needed reality check on that theory. But assuming Joseph did accomplish that much plagiarism from his extensive library, he then failed to show it the rest of his life. My question is, why would a military mind of the kind that could include material that supplies this site, suddenly go blank when faced with real life military issues, and command of a militia?

If Joseph Smith had the military mind to produce the martial narrative in the Book of Mormon we should see it all over his life: in impromptu day dreaming, his writings, and his speeches. But when we examine the major military events in Smith's life, that kind of military genius is sorely lacking. There are three areas that we would especially expect to see Smith's military mind break free. One could argue that Joseph was a disciplined con man that knew when to "lay low" or not seem militant. But there are several places where conflict found him. 1. Zion's Camp in 1834. 2. The Mormon War in 1838. 3. The Nauvoo period of 1843-1846.

1. Zion's Camp: This is where Joseph raised an "army" and marched from Ohio to Missouri in order to aid the Mormon settler's there. Here was Smith's chance. Did he discuss tactics? Did he plan any strategy? Did he drill his soldiers? For a military mind that could include marvelous and detailed military narratives here was his chance to shine in real life. Smith stayed a prophet though. He was more concerned with their spiritual health and basic organization than any detailed thoughts on strategy. And when he got there, he received a "revelation" that called them back before they could fight. If Smith was a fraud with an active military imagination and delusions of grandeur, he surely did not act as though he cared about strategy, physically fighting, or the glory of battle. In short, this was a strange way for the author of the Book of Mormon to act in real life.

2. The Missouri War 1838: Again, here was Smith's chance to really shine. His people were out numbered and blood was running high. The active military mind of the Book of Mormon would have attempted stratagems to lure their enemies. The military mind would have extensively discussed strategy and tactics. The extent of Smith's actions was organizing neighborhood militias. He was dubiously tied to an organization reminiscent of the Gadianton Robbers. And Richard Bushman said that Joseph Smith faded from the forefront in favor of his more militant counselors.(372)

Except for some local raids more in the American frontier style than the military tactics in the Book of Mormon there is nothing, no written records, no battle plans, no grand strategy to suggest the Book of Mormon was a guide or prevalent in Smith's thinking. Again, from the mind the produced the military maneuvers in the Book of Mormon this is inconsistent.

3. The Nauvoo Period. To the shallow scholar this is the most promising field. Joseph Smith was a general in the Nauvoo militia that numbered one of the largest in the state. But assuming Smith had a complex military mind because of his role in the militia is like saying that the President is a major league baseball player because he throws the first pitch at a baseball game. Like the first pitch, commanding the militia, taking part in parades, and participating in mock battles was a form of civic duty and largely ceremonial.

Most modern Americans associate militia with being a radical. For the large part of American history being in a militia was a sign of respectability and often required of politicians to show their patriotism. Many members of militia in established areas and large cities were simply there for show as a member of the upper class. As mayor of Nauvoo Smith tried to increase the respectability of himself and the society of church members he was trying to lead. He established a University (reopening this fall btw). He established a militia. He made plans for a hotel. So what turns out to be a centerpiece of Smith's military ambition is really a reflection of his humble upbringing.

Now some might argue about Smith's proposal to raise an army to conquer the west. Again, the militia was often used to augment the active duty forces, and Smith's offer seems little more than an attempt at further respectability. If this offer were matched with intensive discussion of strategy or his fixation with battle tactics it may seem to be consistent with the military mind of the Book of Mormon. But its not and stands as an isolated and unconvincing example of Smith's militarism and military mind.

Conclusion: Smith raised an army...but then compared it to migration led by Moses and backed down before fighting. He ordered raids...but these raids bear no semblance to the complex tactical actions in the Book of Mormon. And he was a general in a very large militia...but took part in only ceremonial functions equivalent to the President throwing the first pitch at a baseball game.

In Joseph Smith's writing there is no discussion of tactics. No discussion of strategy. No grand strategy for conquering...anything. What we find is a religious man continually referring to spiritual matters. If he created the Book of Mormon out of a fertile mix of plagiarism and imagination he NEVER showed it again in his lifetime. And in many cases he acted in contradiction to what the Book of Mormon indicated action would be. The lack of military thought coming from Joseph Smith would argue heavily against the Book of Mormon being a plagiarized fiction.

19th Century American Military Theory and the Book of Mormon

I received a question from Broz who blogs over at www.ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com, and since I wanted to move away from the bitter polemics that are often involved in apologetics I thought this would be a good transition post. It builds upon my previous posts which examine ancient military theory and tactics within the BoM by presenting common American Military thought at the time of its publication. It also references a paper concerning the principles of war, that I hope to link to when its finally posted. [I also added the reference to Weigley and corrected spelling and grammar in a couple places]


Thanks for your interest in my blog. Your question [concerning military theory and practice in 1830-1860 America] got me thinking for awhile. In order to answer it I will describe American military thought in the 19th century and the major theoreticians that influenced their behavior. And then I will compare it to events in the BoM.

After Napoleon two major theoreticians dominated military thought with the supposed lessons of warfare from the conflicts. Jomini and Clausewitz. Both writers started their works in the late 1820s and 1830s. Clausewitz was not even translated into English until after the civil war (I think), but he definitely was not translated, or even done writing by 1830. The writings of Jomini were more prevalent, but even then he was not taught extensively at West Point. West Point taught very few classes on military theory and leadership in that time, it was mainly a glorified engineering school (that's what Lee graduated in for example). It was not until the late 19th century that they added command and general staff schools on the model of German successes and they started using Clausewitz.

High Nibley has discussed the elements of Clausewitzean theory in the BoM. You can find it here: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=727

I have also discussed Captain Moroni's leadership using the same author here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2009/01/clausewitz-on-captain-moronis-genius.html

In both cases the BoM definitely exhibits military thought and strategy far beyond what Joseph Smith had available to him. I also have done research that is accepted for publication (BCC E Journal) that describes principles of war taught to current army officers within the BoM. Again this is far beyond what J.S. displayed in his life and writings and even beyond common knowledge of military officers in that day. The principles of war were not explicated until the 1920s by a British army officer named J.F.C. Fuller.(Clausewitz gave some too but Fuller's are much better known) They are now drilled into U.S. Army officers to help them analyze information.

Within the BoM there is some Jominian thought. This was a post Napoleonic writer that was popular in America before the Civil War. The practice of Moroni having separate parts of his army pinch an enemy army between them does sound similar to his Jomini's main principle. (max the most amount of strength at a specific point) But the many ruses and stratagems employed by Moroni are common among ancient armies. A Roman writer named Frontinus wrote about many of these at about 75 BC, about the same time as Moroni.

With military theory you can use accepted principles and push them backwards, such as post Napoleonic writers. But you can also use contemporary writers to place BoM events within its expected time frames. In short: the BoM displays many correct military principles codified by writers Joseph Smith did not have access to. It is also corroborated by military writers that were contemporaries of BoM events, such as Frontinus and Caesar. Again, Smith did not have access to these either. (Unless we can believe that he read untranslated German military theory in the moonlight after working as a farmer all day and other nonsense)

So I hope that answers your question. Let me know if it does not. For further reading you can see "American Strategy from the Beginning to World War I" by Russell Weigley in The Makers of Modern Strategy.