Nope. I don't even like RSR. Couldn't see the point in pandering to the outsiders. Now, a book by an outsider pandering to insiders - he cannot help but get it wrong. (Yes, that's prejudice - but long experience justifies dim expectations.)
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
What is the background of John G. Turner? is he LDS?, I noticed he is a prof. of History
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
What do you mean 'pandering to outsiders'? Is your complaint that Bushman's book wasn't a complete hagiography?
Richard Bushman said:
Am I afraid to come down unequivocally for fear of cutting myself completely out of the academic discussion, like a Jew covering up his Jewishness or a pale African American trying to pass? I say to myself that I confess my belief on the opening page, and from there on I am simply trying to make room for a non-believer. Long ago I said on a radio interview that Fawn Brodie cuts Mormons out of her book. There was no room for believers among her readers unless they accepted the status of idiots and dupes. I didn't want to leave non-Mormons out of my account, so I tried to address them and say, I understand your needs. Do I go so far in this direction in RSR that I play pitty-pat? In my effort to make the Book of Mormon intelligible do I fail to convey my own conviction that it is true? And the same for the revelations and for Joseph Smith's divine calling.
...
I can see now that I could have written the whole book inside this framework. Instead of trying to keep the reader and myself in the same place, creating a common point of view amenable to believer and non-believer alike, I could have taken on the role of guide to a Mormon perspective on the Mormon prophet, acknowledging the differences and saying this is how we look at it. The point of persuasion would be to show the benefits of examining Joseph from a believer's perspective. What can you learn by looking at him through believing eyes that might be lost if you begin with the assumption he had to be a fraud. It would not take many changes to rewrite the book in that way. A few alterations in the introduction, a few others at key points would do the job. At these junctures, I would step forward and say, This is where a Mormon and non-Mormon historian will part company. Here is what you can learn if you will follow me. Once again, candor is the best policy. Why didn't I see that earlier? Live and learn.
Had he done that, I would have very little to complain about.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Had he done that, I would have very little to complain about.
I still think the book, as it stands, is fantastic, and is the best, most complete, and most fair treatment that's ever been done. Is it perfect? I don't think anything ever will be. But it's far more than I could have hoped for, and I gained a very strong appreciation for Joseph, and found a wonderful portal for beginning an exploration of Early Church History.
Since then, I've done a great deal of study and research around Joseph's era of Church history, approaching original documents, etc. Bushman's book stands as the locus and reference/context around which all of those latter studies hung. Other works came along to enhance, revise, and add to his work (such as Mark Staker's Hearken O Ye People, The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, Sam Brown's In Heaven as it is On Earth, and the John Whitmer Books collection Persistence of Polygamy: Volume 1, Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy. , among other works, including great pieces in Mormon Studies journals such as Dialogue and Journal of Mormon History. The Joseph Smith Papers were enhanced for me by having Bushman's narrative, as well as those other contextual pieces - but Bushman's was the keystone, you might say.
I haven't dipped into significant studies of Early Utah Mormonism, mainly because I was spoiled with JS era material, and didn't have what I saw as a reliable and detailed foundational narrative text to center it around. The closest thing has been Givens and Grow's Pratt bio, which I view as a bit of a bridge (Wagoner's Rigdon bio was fascinating and helpful, but branches off in a different direction).
I'm very excited for this BY bio, as it means something huge for the way I personally study and approach periods of Mormon history. I haven't dug into the Journal of Discourses, because I lacked a great amount of historical and developmental context as a base. Following an exploration of this new book, I finally plan to jump into studies of BY-era Utah Mormon history and developments with some new perspectives and insights at hand. Plus the very many articles and papers on that era of history will suddenly become far more interesting.
This is exactly the book I've been waiting to be written since I finished Rough Stone Rolling. Anyone else excited about this one?
I'm looking forward to this one too. Turner is a newcomer to LDS history but he seems like a quick study. I'm also eagerly awaiting Ronald Walker's Brigham Young biography. Exciting times we live in.
The book i'm looking forward to is the Paul H. Dunn bio by Prince, not sure when its coming out though
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo
i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon
it's a real thing according to a podcast I listened to a year or so ago from Prince himself talking about Elder Dunn, I await that day
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
Other forthcoming biographical studies include Elizabeth Anderson’s edition of the diaries of Anthony W. Ivins, Harvard Heath’s abridgement of the presidential diaries of David O. McKay, Devery S. Anderson’s biography of Willard Richards, and Jim Harris’s works on James E. Talmage. (And although he’s not an apostle, B. H. Roberts will be receiving new treatment from John Sillito.) Finally, there are rumors of contemplated biographies of Ezra Taft Benson and possibly Joseph F. Smith.
As for timetables, he said:
Quote
I think the Ivins volume will appear 2012-13, the McKay volume in 2013-14. The Willard Richards and B. H. Roberts biographies are Smith-Pettit projects; they should be finished by the end of 2012, maybe early 2013. Jim Harris’s books are TBA. And the Benson and Smith biographies are still only rumors, though if they pan out, they should be great.
I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo
i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon
Call me stupid. I thought you meant Prince, not Greg Prince.
that would be quite the bio of Elder Dunn written by the artist formerly known as prince! haha!
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
What do you mean 'pandering to outsiders'? Is your complaint that Bushman's book wasn't a complete hagiography?
I know precisely what Log means.
What is interesting is that, in a recent conversation with one of the giants of Mormon studies and apologetics (whom I shall not name in this post), it was the word "pandering" that we both agreed best described significant portions of Rough Stone Rolling.
Don't get me wrong, by and large I liked the book. But my impression is that Bushman does pander, in many instances, to Mormon critics--yielding on points that needn't be surrendered.
William Schryver, on 02 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:
I know precisely what Log means.
What is interesting is that, in a recent conversation with one of the giants of Mormon studies and apologetics (whom I shall not name in this post), it was the word "pandering" that we both agreed best described significant portions of Rough Stone Rolling.
Don't get me wrong, by and large I liked the book. But my impression is that Bushman does pander, in many instances, to Mormon critics--yielding on points that needn't be surrendered.
0
