Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling

[Fly Fisherman]

Something about this poster tells me s/he is a troll. Can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's the fact that the person who wrote this post later claimed to have read The Last Temptation and God Is Not Great. That 2 plus this 2 doesn't add up, at least to my ear.

Just thinkin' out loud.

I don't think the poster is a troll. Based on the history of his/her posts, anyway. Maybe needs a paradigm adjustment, and if so, hopefully RSR can help with that. Funny, I always had the paradigm that Joseph Smith did many things that we don't fully understand. When I studied RSR and other publications, it actually was comforting to me that indeed, there are things that we just don't fully understand about him. Paradigms are everything, as the recent thread displayed so well. In fact, that makes him so much more of a special prophet, IMO. His vision exceeded ours, and hence, much he did is not fully understandable, as it should be from someone who was to be the prophet of this dispensation, and bring about the restoration.

[cinepro]

Let me start by stating that any book that takes a critical view of the prophet Joseph Smith is troubling to me. I find this especially troubling when the author is a member of the Church.

First, you really, really need to read the book. The whole thing, including the footnotes.

Second, you should recognize that "critical" can be an ambiguous term. Here are two of the many definitions from Websters:

2 a: inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably

c: exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/critical

I'm assuming you are assuming definition 2a in your use of the word "critical". Having read the book, I think definition 2c is the more applicable choice. You should read it and form your own opinion.

Actually, I'll save you some time. Here is everything that a reader may find objectionable in Rough Stone Rolling:

- Joseph Smith dug for money as a youth

- Joseph Smith sometimes lost his temper (but was quick to forgive a repentant soul)

- Joseph Smith started a bank that failed

- Joseph Smith had more than one wife. Some of these women had another living husband. Emma didn't know about many of these other wives.

There you go. That's the 10 second version of every "negative" thing I can remember from RSR, sans footnotes. If you were able to read this, and are still able to drag yourself out of bed on Sunday morning and go to Church, then you obviously have the stones to read the whole book without losing your testimony.

(And yes, pun intended on the use of the word "stones" )

[William Schryver]

cinepro:

- Joseph Smith sometimes lost his temper (but was quick to forgive a repentant soul)

Meaning that he probably would have knocked you down in the dirt, kicked you in the ribs for good measure, and then reached out the hand of fellowship when and if you promised to repent.

You would probably benefit from having someone like Joseph Smith around in your life.

[Duncan]

I think Bushman's book was, is a wakeup call to some Mormons who read it because its not intended to be the same genre of writing that they, we, are used to in the Church. I grew up reading books like "101 untold Mormon stories". Same person, Joseph Smith, different ideas of approaches. Maybe we are not used to culturally critiquelly-I spelled that wrong I realize, its friday- examining Joseph Smith without thinking its anti mormon.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I do know that some TBM's base their opinions on the reviews published by FARMS.

You say this like it's invariably a bad thing.

- Joseph Smith started a bank that failed

Actually, he failed to establish a bank, helped to establish an anti-bank, which failed.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I will further state that, and I know many will at this point call me a hypocrite and uninformed,

website check out our beliefs and then see there propaganda.

Your right...However this is mantle that every man living has worn at one time or another. I could make anyone (including Christ) look bad by taking quotes out of context. Read the book is good so far, I am currently reading it.

[Kevin Christensen]

I loved Rough Stone Rolling. I had previously read Brodie and Hill, and numerous other relevant studies in books and journals. Bushman's is by far the best Joseph Smith biography. Brodie is badly dated by studies that its appearance triggered. Defending Brodie compared to Bushman at this late date only demonstrates an ignorance of what has happened in LDS studies since Brodie first appeared.

I've read the Tanner's Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. Given their basic assumptions, which they make explicit with the de-conversion stories, it's about what you'd expect. They explicitly state that they are holding up the LDS faith and community against a standard of exclusive perfection. Hence, only imperfections are decisive, and it follows that only LDS imperfections, whether real or perceived, appear in their book. I noticed, if they did not, that D&C 1 explicitly undercuts the standard they apply to the LDS faith (that is, D&C 1 explicitly announces that truth, virtue and revelation are non-exclusive to the LDS faith, and that the LDS leaders and people are imperfect.) Many people have noticed that the Tanner's own faith would fail against the standard to which the hold the LDS, had they been capable of honest self-reflection, as suggested by the Mote-Eye comments in the Gospels. As an exercise in mis-direction and hypocrisy, or as social history, or to note the source the highly derrivative counter-LDS literature, it may have some value. But not as serious scholarship.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cinepro]

I will add that the most shocking thing to me about RSR was the liberal use of what I would have considered "questionable sources" in the footnotes. It's been two years since I read it, but didn't he reference Brodie quite a bit, as well as "Mormonism Unveiled" and other early "anti" works?

[Thinking]

It raises the question.

(Pet peeve.)

My professors at BYU used beg more than raise. Maybe it was cool in the 80's to say "begs the question."

In my case, I'm basing my criticism on the reading of Tanner materials -- sometimes done in the process of writing something for FARMS.

And I respect your opinion.

In point of fact, though, since we cannot read all books, attend all plays, see all movies, or buy all CDs, we often base our decisions on reviews. It's prudent to do so. And, even when we've read the book, attended the play, seen the movie, or listened to the CD, we often find solidly done and perceptive criticism useful, particularly when it involves expertise that we ourselves don't possess.

Yes it's true that I cannot read every book. And I can decide whether to read a book based on a review written by somebody like you. However, I think there is a difference between a decision to not read a book and being critical of a book which I have not read.

In my earlier post I cautioned the critics also.

Critics should also be careful to not base their opinions on the opinions of another critic who read X or Y or Z.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I loved Rough Stone Rolling. I had previously read Brodie and Hill, and numerous other relevant studies in books and journals. Bushman's is by far the best Joseph Smith biography. Brodie is badly dated by studies that it's appearance triggered. Defending Brodie compared to Bushman at this late date only demonstrates an ignorance of what has happened in LDS studies since Brodie first appeared.

I've read the Tanner's Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. Given their basic assumptions, which they make explicit with the de-conversion stories, it's about what you'd expect. They explicitly state that they are holding up the LDS faith and community against a standard of exclusive perfection. Hence, only imperfections are decisive, and it follows that only LDS imperfections, whether real or perceived, appear in their book. I noticed, if they did not, that D&C 1 explicitly undercuts the standard they apply to the LDS faith (that is, D&C 1 explicitly announces that truth, virtue and revelation are non-exclusive to the LDS faith, and that the LDS leaders and people are imperfect.) Many people have noticed that the Tanner's own faith would fail against the standard to which the hold the LDS, had they been capable of honest self-reflection, as suggested by the Mote-Eye comments in the Gospels. As an exercise in mis-direction and hypocrisy, or as social history, or to note the source the highly derrivative counter-LDS literature, it may have some value. But not as serious scholarship.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Parenthetically, Bushman thought he could write a book that would "knock Brodie's out of the ring," if you will. After a few book tours he concluded he had failed in that regard, not because her book is better or more factual, but because it is much more readily received by critics of the prophet who aren't as interested in a more sympathetic, or less ham-fisted, view of Joseph Smith.

Kev- Where can I read your thoughts on D&C 1? Thanks.

I will add that the most shocking thing to me about RSR was the liberal use of what I would have considered "questionable sources" in the footnotes. It's been two years since I read it, but didn't he reference Brodie quite a bit, as well as "Mormonism Unveiled" and other early "anti" works?

Yep. He tried to use as many sources as he could.

Additionally, you ought to check out the footnotes for B.H. Roberts' Comprehensive History. It's similar in less discrimination against quoting antagonistic sources. He heavily cites critics.

[Dale]

I have read Mormonism Shador or Reality? three time's. And i have looked through the book many more times when studying topics. I also read their smaller Major Problems in Mormonism. I subscribed to the free Salt Lake City Messenger a few time's. I read a pile of tracts through Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

I don't usually fully judge something someone has written through merely reading a review. I prefer to read a book myself, so i can say i read it myself.

[Kevin Christensen]

Parenthetically, Bushman thought he could write a book that would "knock Brodie's out of the ring," if you will. After a few book tours he concluded he had failed in that regard, not because her book is better or more factual, but because it is much more readily received by critics of the prophet who aren't as interested in a more sympathetic, or less ham-fisted, view of Joseph Smith.

Kev- Where can I read your thoughts on D&C 1? Thanks.

Given time, I think Bushman's book will displace Brodie.

My thoughts on D&C 1? I've posted them periodically on various "only true church" threads here and on ZLMB. I also did a Sunstone presentation on the topic many years ago. Here is a recent version from August.

As I keep saying, D&C 1 specifies not "only true church on earth" but "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individuallyâ??"

The way I parse the sentence the "only" is modified by "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased." That distinction of relative pleasure has to do with what "true and living" means in reference to the church. That, is what the "true and living" designation ought to lead us to look for in the LDS church. Around 1992, I was led to contextualize "true and living" in comparison to Biblical usage in passages about "true vine," "living waters," "living bread", 'the truth and the life," "tree of life," "the true God, the living God" (from a voice of warning passage in Jeremiah 10:10). What I noticed back then was that such Biblical passages mirror the themes of D&C 1 point for point, and verse for verse.

For instance, the single Biblical use of "true" and "living" in Jer. 10:10 occurs in a voice of warning passage akin to the opening verses of D&C 1.

And verse D&C 1:15:

"For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;"

The Biblical passages about living bread, living waters, and the tree of life are all tied to the ordinances of the sacrament, baptism, the temple, and these in turn, to the everlasting covenant.

Verse 17:

Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

This shares themes with the passages about the calling of the apostles in John 15-17 that start by discussing the true vine:

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman"

Visualizing a menorah, a tree of life, shows the relation of the branches to the center vine, the dependence of the apostles on the Lord as the source of their authority, information, and strength, and also evokes the temple and ongoing revelation. D&C 1 demonstrates the same ideas as the Lord explains why he has called Joseph Smith, and what he expects him to do.

In my reading "true and living" serve as a merism, expressing as succinctly as possible the associated themes from these kinds of Bible passages, which also mirror point for point, verse for verse the themes of D&C 1. I think that convergence of themes around "true and living" imagery is deliberate, inspired, and to me, inspiring.

To me, at least, D&C 1:30 expresses a different concept than the popular "only true church" idea. It does not waste its 29 words in expressing that meaning, a meaning is far more tolerant and robust. That is, it makes no claim to exclusive truth, virtue or revelation. (Indeed, D&C 1 expressly refutes such notions.) It does, however express clearly that the world has strayed from the ordinances and covenants. And these, Joseph Smith claims to have restored. I do take the restoration seriously (see D&C 1:17-30). I evaluate the church according to the actual claims made in D&C 1, not against the claims made in popular LDS discourse.

Kevin Christensen

Incidentally, I recently noticed an important passage using "living" in Hebrews 10, that I think sheds more light on the "and living" in D&C 1.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

I think the explicit temple imagery involved in "a new and living" way here has a lot to do with why D&C 1:30 says "true and living" rather than just "only true. Have temples doesn't make us the only true church, but it does make os the only ones who offer this "new and living way", among other things.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Daniel Peterson]

My professors at BYU used beg more than raise. Maybe it was cool in the 80's to say "begs the question."

The reason I called attention to it is that begging the question is the name of a specific logical fallacy, also known (by its Latin name) as petitio principii:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[caesarmoridon]

Bushman's book is not for you. You should find everything you need in George Q. Cannon's fine scholarly treatise The Life of Joseph Smith, the Prophet.

That is an excellent book. I have read it and used it as a reference many times.

[caesarmoridon]

Somewhat like you, RSR caused me to learn many new things about JS and Church history that I had not known. Yes, the fact that he has been a Stake President, Patriarch and Temple Sealer and is currently an active and faithful member of the Church does make it difficult to simply discount what he says when it seems "critical" of JS. However, Bushman has actually been criticized for being too pro-Jospeh Smith in his writing, so don't take your concerns out on Bushman. Joseph Smith did what he did and it is up to you to determine what that means for you. If you want people to say Bushman was wrong about this or that fact, you are not going to hear it. Bushman was right about just about everything (there may have been a rare person here or there who quibbled with a fact or two and certainly people that thought he spun things a bit to favor the Church and JS).

Caesar, you might want to check out the FAIR Wiki if you have not already. http://www.fairwiki.org/FAIRwiki:Table_of_contents

Also, you can read articles about the very subject that concerns you, polyandry-marrying other living men's wives, at fairlds.org .

Good luck.

Thank you, I appreciate your advice and comments.

[caesarmoridon]

Something about this poster tells me s/he is a troll. Can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's the fact that the person who wrote this post later claimed to have read The Last Temptation and God Is Not Great. That 2 plus this 2 doesn't add up, at least to my ear.

Just thinkin' out loud.

If you read my other postings you will see, I am anything but a troll. I like to read what the enemies have to say. I also watched the 3rd debate between Hitchens and D'Souza. In my opinion D'Souza wiped the table with him. Hitchens is a terrible person, an alcoholic and a shrew. I understand your concern about the showing of trolls in this forum there are plenty here. I often feel many of the members here act like trolls themselves with discussions that are borderline blasphemes in nature. With that said, if the polyandry is true, I want sources for them. From the Writing at FARMS it said even if I had the book deciphering the source material is very difficult.

I think I need to clarify where I am at so that people may not react as you have. I, my mother and my wife all had a hard time believing this act of polyandry. I having on a near daily basis debatling with antis at youtube have never even heard this. I have challenged anti's, on many areas. The fact that something I could not possibly believe is true is true is causing me some serious time in prayer and contemplation. I find this practice disturbing to me, especially with the way the Church handles the separation of sealing today. In order to get a sealing separated as a relative does requires her children's approval. How could the practices be so very different today than yesterday? I understand that there have been 3 or 4 phases of the Church, IE the Early Church, the Movement west or frontier Church, the corporate Church and the expansion Church.

One of the key things I have asked for is references to this history. What I mean by this is the source. In history, journalism, and other fields the credibility of the source is key. I have read the volumes of the History of the Church, I have read the other church endorsed histories of the Prophet Joseph Smith, I have never read this in any of them. It is a simple question, who said it? Where is it written down? Why should we take this as fact without having the source material?

I do not have an extra $15 dollars to spend on a book I do not want to read. I simply want his reference material. Does anybody have the sources?

[Dale]

Todd Compton has concluded atleast one example Joseph Smiths polyandry was platonic. He admit's that's likely the extent of Joseph Smith's relationship with Patty Session's.

I see the logic of the author In Sacred Lonliness speculative at time's. Even if he knows nothing of a honey-moon he assume's that such was probably included. He say's several time's that after the ceremony nothing is known about such private detail's. But if he know's a little about the private detail's in another polygamous marriage he assume's that opens the way to speculate in regards to other cases.

The only claim of a child of Joseph Smith born to a polyandrous wife was of Sylvia Session's daughter Josephine. Her mother on her deathbed told her she was a daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. But i found out some women were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death. Heber J. Grants mother was one woman that was sealed to Joseph Smith by proxy. He had been called a son of the prophet Joseph Smith. So i think the daughter could have misunderstood the mother.

Angus Cannon did claim he heard Brigham Young say before his death Patty Session's made the same claim. No offense to Angus Cannon, or his descendants, but i don't know he could not have fabricated hearing something Brigham Young never said.

DNA testing has been done on the claim. But Ugo Perego has not published any results for or against the claim.

I think it's pre-mature to say the evidence back's up she was a child. A few old quote's does not a child make. If she was then we would know Joseph Smiths relationship with Sylvia wasn't platonic. But if she was not Joseph Smiths then i think it's ok to treat her relationship with Joseph Smith as possibly platonic.

[Dale]

Remember the sealing's wern't supposed to go into effect until the eternity if i am right. So the existing marriage would end at death. Since the women were never sealed for eternity to the existing husband they did not need a temple divorce, or sealing seperated.

Does that answer your concern?

[Mike Reed]

Having had recent conversations with Bushman, I did not get the impression that he was apostate in any way. If the old saying "it takes one to know one" has truth to it... then my perspective should be quite telling. --Mike (the one and only rabid, foaming at the mouth, anti-mormon apostate allowed to post here)

[Daniel Peterson]

If Richard Bushman (whom I've known for years and with whom I've spent time as recently as last week) is an apostate or an unbeliever, I'm a leprechaun stockbroker from Venus.

[Duncan]

After this position with Claremont will Prof. Bushman retire? I was wondering how old he is and not that I wish he would retire I was just wondering what will be next for him.

[Dale]

I had a friend whose LDS relative thought it an Anti-Mormon lie that Joseph Smith had ran for president. So it's entirely possible you thought the claim about Joseph Smith and polyandry was made up. None of the basic information is made up. And RSR, and In Sacred Lonliness only reports the claim's made by some of the Nauvoo participants in plural marriage themselve's.

Mary Lightner Adam Lightner's wife was very vocal about her being sealed to Joseph Smith. She left testimony to that effect. I don't read her as quite saying she was ever unfaithful to her husband Adam. But her sealing to Joseph Smith is as well documented as any of his sealing's to single women.

[buraianto]

I do not have an extra $15 dollars to spend on a book I do not want to read. I simply want his reference material. Does anybody have the sources?

You could peruse the sources listed in the book at the bookstore, without buying the book, if you're interested.

If you are interested further in Richard Bushman and his book, I recommend the set of podcast interviews done of Bushman on Mormon Stories.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

[caesarmoridon]

Remember the sealing's wern't supposed to go into effect until the eternity if i am right. So the existing marriage would end at death. Since the women were never sealed for eternity to the existing husband they did not need a temple divorce, or sealing seperated.

Does that answer your concern?

In some regards this answers my concerns. I do not have a problem so much even with women being sealed to him who have non-member husbands. My main issue is with the married, previously seal couples. I am feeling better after reading the vast postings on this issue.

In an answer to the question posed by you in another area regarding Todd Covingtons? book, anti- was a little strong. the review I read was on shields website. They gave a very detailed review of the book and quoted from the book, but the conclusions on the practicing of Joseph Smith of adultery was implied in the book not clearly defined. From what I read of the review, Todd ? take was based on the RLDS viewpoint or perspective.

[why me]

What Bushman did was truly remarkable for a church member. Bushman made JS a human being and since JS was a human being, that is quite remarkable in church circles. And this is why Bushman'a book is valuable. Not just for the information but also for the human content of JS's life.

What Bushman did was to deconstruct a human life and in the process make that life constructive. As I have stated previously, many church publications of JS made him into a very righteous and holy man but they did not make him human. Reading some biographies of JS from church sources reminded me of reading the life of lenin from soviet sources. Remarkable feats were written but hardly human in content.

Bushman broke the cycle and I do believe that many lds scholars will now follow his example. I am still waiting for DCP to write a small volume of the prophet's life. I know that he can make the prophet into a prophet who was also human.