DiscussMormonism.com

A friend has started asking a number of pointed questions after reading Rough Stone Rolling. He thinks what was written about Joseph Smith has to be lies and is starting to search to refute what was written about him.

Another has started questioning and asking 'why didn't our leaders tell us the truth'? He isn't getting answers in Priesthood meeting, just 'why are you reading apostate books' type of responses.

Looks like some who read are very surprised to find the history on Joseph in the book at odds with 'Truth' as approved by 'the Lords' chosen leadership here on Earth.

JoetheClerk wrote:A friend has started asking a number of pointed questions after reading Rough Stone Rolling. He thinks what was written about Joseph Smith has to be lies and is starting to search to refute what was written about him.

Another has started questioning and asking 'why didn't our leaders tell us the truth'? He isn't getting answers in Priesthood meeting, just 'why are you reading apostate books' type of responses.

Looks like some who read are very surprised to find the history on Joseph in the book at odds with 'Truth' as approved by 'the Lords' chosen leadership here on Earth.

Your friends' priesthood leaders need to take another look at the book. It's not an apostate book by any stretch of the imagination.

But it shows Joseph in a less-than-perfect light, therefore it is anti-Mormon.

JoetheClerk wrote:A friend has started asking a number of pointed questions after reading Rough Stone Rolling. He thinks what was written about Joseph Smith has to be lies and is starting to search to refute what was written about him.

Another has started questioning and asking 'why didn't our leaders tell us the truth'? He isn't getting answers in Priesthood meeting, just 'why are you reading apostate books' type of responses.

Looks like some who read are very surprised to find the history on Joseph in the book at odds with 'Truth' as approved by 'the Lords' chosen leadership here on Earth.

And thus it begins. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint) most Mormons do not share your friend's curiosity. He is bound to either become an apologist or a critic. There is no going back.

In 2007, we had an Elder's Quorum instructor hold up the book and recommend we read it in preparation for the 2008-09 lessons. So feelings towards the book must vary widely in the Church.

Too funny if he thinks the stuff in that book is a little harsh.

I think for the most part top leadership approve of the book. I was in a meeting with Elder Jensen the Church historian a few years back. He was positive about the book though he did admit that there were some top leaders who were not. I asked him about the book and what the approach to Church history would be. He discussed the then up coming publication of the Joseph Smith papers. He said in his view there is nothing the Church need be embarrassed about in its history.

But RSR is in a bit of a dilemma. Here we have a book that is written by a solid believer and really is not hugely controversial. Yet it brings up so much that is never ever discussed and it can be a shocker. If someone calls Bushman's book anti what does that tell you about how the Church has been teaching Church history for years. It confirms that the Church teaches milk toast and only the positive and faith promoting.

Jason Bourne wrote: It confirms that the Church teaches milk toast and only the positive and faith promoting.

What is negative about the truth?

What is negative about the truth?

I don't think the "truths" contained within RSR are really that negative... The shock of learning new disturbing facts about the founder of your religion is what causes the negative feelings.. and possibly the realization that an organization you have dedicated all of your time, talents ....to -- has squatted on these "truths", evangelizing an altered perception of the very flawed man, Joseph Smith...

It's interesting how we only have these feelings toward Joseph Smith. He, above all the prophets, is deified in the Church.