Dan Vogel On Bushman’S Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Vogel reviews Richard Lyman Bushman’s award-winning book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005). The occasion of this review was his participation on a panel convened at the Mormon History Association Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 27 May 2006. Other Panelists were William D. Russell, Gary Topping, and Martha Bradley-Evans. Newell Bringhurst was the moderator and Bushman was the respondent.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Meh. Same ol', same ol'.

[mfbukowski]

Meh. Same ol', same ol'.

+1

[why me]

Dan Vogel reviews Richard Lyman Bushman’s award-winning book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005). The occasion of this review was his participation on a panel convened at the Mormon History Association Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 27 May 2006. Other Panelists were William D. Russell, Gary Topping, and Martha Bradley-Evans. Newell Bringhurst was the moderator and Bushman was the respondent.

The problems that Dan has with Joseph Smith has to do with the early part of Mormon history as Joseph brings forth a book which he claims comes from gold plates with 11 witnesses to back up the gold plates. Also, we have a problem of authorship. How did Joseph write the book of mormon without a manuscript? And when it comes to his father, dan doesn't seem to deal with the fact that Joseph's father was one of the witnesses and certainly not one to be convinced too easily that he actually saw the plates, especially if he had his own ideas about religion. But the father was convinced that his son was a prophet and that since Joseph's father saw the plates and most likely handled the plates he kept the faith all his life. John Whitmer also claimed that he handled the plates and turned the leaves over. And other witnesses did not claim that they saw the plates under a cloth but they actually saw the plates as stated in their general statement.

Early mormon history is a good starting point for its truthfulness.

[Hamilton Porter]

Dan Vogel has helped me realize that naturalistic theories on Book of Mormon origins are very convoluted. Get your Dan Vogel fix today!

[wenglund]

Dan Vogel reviews Richard Lyman Bushman’s award-winning book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005). The occasion of this review was his participation on a panel convened at the Mormon History Association Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 27 May 2006. Other Panelists were William D. Russell, Gary Topping, and Martha Bradley-Evans. Newell Bringhurst was the moderator and Bushman was the respondent.

On the whole I thought your review was interesting and informative. What I found most remarkable about it was how frequently you used the term "deception," particularly in relation to alleged "incongruities and contradictions," which suggested to me a plausible bias of your own which may have colored your perception of presumed weakness in Bushman iranic historiography. In other words, your own weakness may have caused you to over-state the weakness in Bushman's approach.

I can certainly understand, though, your defensiveness, as a non-believer, to the notion that believers may better understand believers than non-believers. However, it seems to me that the notion has been underscored on numerous occasions by you, personally, during on-line discussions where you (and other non-believers) have misunderstood what I and other believers have said and argued, to the point where I have raised the question that if you have such difficulty correctly understanding your contemporaries who have relatively the same cultural background and experience, what reason do we have to believe you won't have even more difficulty looking back centuries and across cultures?

Anyway, can you provide a Youtube link to Bushman's response and/or presentation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rivers]

For a book that is being sold at Deseret Book, RSR really pushes the boundaries when it comes to discussing the controversial aspects of Joseph Smith's life. So I don't see why anyone needs to make that big of a fuss over what Bushman left out. His book is huge progress.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Rivers

[Hamilton Porter]

Because the Book of Mormon hasn't been validated historically, whacky hypotheses about his manufacturing the plates from tin are not speculative.

[Rivers]

Because the Book of Mormon hasn't been validated historically, whacky hypotheses about his manufacturing the plates from tin are not speculative.

If Joseph Smith really had plates of tin, what is the likelihood that they would be discovered?

[Hamilton Porter]

If Joseph Smith really had plates of tin, what is the likelihood that they would be discovered?

I don't know, I'm not a historian.

[Rivers]

I don't know, I'm not a historian.

Me neither. That's why I'm throwing the question out there. If Joseph's plates of tin were ever discovered, that might be a checkmate for the critics.

[wenglund]

Because the Book of Mormon hasn't been validated historically, whacky hypotheses about his manufacturing the plates from tin are not speculative.

This is as good a non-sequitur as I have witnessed on this board in some time. I appreciate you posting it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

Dan,

Question for you.... John Dehlin says that the chance of there being real plates, real authority, real visions in this church's founding historical account is on par with a flying spaghetti monster. Do you see it as that lopsided or do see why Latter-Day saints who currently believe, believe?

While critics see it as impossible I see it as plausible with many evidences supporting it as historical truth. Now obviously one has to at least believe in God and the possibility of the supernatural but that said and assumed, do you see it as 99% to 1%, 80/20, 60/40, ? I am interested in your opinion as this goes in line with your thoughts on how Bushman handles the story from a faithful perspective.

Thanks

[Dan Vogel]

Dan,

Question for you.... John Dehlin says that the chance of there being real plates, real authority, real visions in this church's founding historical account is on par with a flying spaghetti monster. Do you see it as that lopsided or do see why Latter-Day saints who currently believe, believe?

While critics see it as impossible I see it as plausible with many evidences supporting it as historical truth. Now obviously one has to at least believe in God and the possibility of the supernatural but that said and assumed, do you see it as 99% to 1%, 80/20, 60/40, ? I am interested in your opinion as this goes in line with your thoughts on how Bushman handles the story from a faithful perspective.

Thanks

DBMormon,

As a sixth-generation Mormon, Mormonism has plausibility to me at a deeply psychological level. But to someone not raised Mormon, it is alien and implausible. However, plausibility is easy to achieve—it just takes a little imagination or a lot of imagination in JS’s case. Historians are supposed to seek out probable interpretations, not just plausible ones. There are always going to be things that appear to support BOM historicity, but the bulk of the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. There is nothing wrong with writing from a believer’s point of view, but Bushman made the mistake of trying to justify that view as historically reliable.

[DBMormon]

From that vantage point and by that same reasoning it seems that Jesus as a resurrected messiah is highly unlikely, God doesn't exist, and angels are a figment of the imagination.... you agree? Yet there is much plausibility out there to give the believer's good reason to hope?

[altersteve]

There are always going to be things that appear to support BOM historicity, but the bulk of the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

I find it interesting how often critics say things like this, but then they just leave it at that, as if we should just take their word for it.

[DBMormon]

Mr. Dan Vogel, I would also ask is the explanations for the Book of Mormon only plausible in your view? Is also the criticsm of the Book of Mormon Witnesses considering the whole volume of what they have said and what they had gone through as plausible? While a few revelations can be seen as having failed, Many were fulfilled (given some could be described as self fulfilling prophesies), some very dramatically. Is the explanations of this to simply cast them away only plausible?

I ask seriously and hope you might address this in all sincerity.

While I agree with you that much evidence for the restoration can be seen as circumstantial, I also see much of the criticism and arguments against as circumstantial as well. There is no adequate way to explain the entire story of the restoration, it's many witnesses, the events claimed to have been seen by more then one person and sometimes a room full, the growth from it's humble beginnings, and last of all the majesty of the Book of Mormon in all it's beauty without also begging for one to grab at straws trying to decipher it.

Again not saying it is absolutely 50/50 though I see it that way. Just that one can have faith in the restoration without feeling duped or naive and when added to one's spiritual experiences adds up to something substantial. Those are my feelings but I certainly would enjoy hearing more of you opinion and thoughts on this conversation.

Thank You

Edited August 17, 2012 by DBMormon

[Vookman]

Dan's explanation of the eight witnesses' experience turn the plain meaning of the words they use into a poster child for denial for purely (a)theological purposes. The Eight Witnesses don't say an angel is involved, nor is there any language which is remotely related to contemporary visionary language. Statements that the witnesses had to be "spiritually" prepared are no different than any religious person saying they fasted before baptism: It doesn't make the baptism less real and wet, it just makes it more meaningful.

On the bgreek board a poster once asked the rhetorical question that if you interpret the Bible based on your theology, whence came your theology. I think that is clearly present with Mr. Vogel. The only way to justify dismissal of the plain reading of the statement by the eight witnesses or their other statements is to view the indivdual words as a group of unconnected thoughts with no view to what was their purpose:

"...to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not..."

Vogel's explanation requires us to accept these people actually did not "see", as the plain meaning of the word is to be understood by their previous use of words such as "appearance", "shown", "handle with our hands", "saw the engravings thereon", "shown unto us...seen and hefted". There are no words which have an obvious meaning of something metaphysical. Unless you bring those concepts with you.

When all you have is a hammer, everything is a (visionary) nail.

Bob

[Vookman]

BTW, a first hand statement, such as the testimony of the eight witnesses, when specific details are provided should probably trump secondary or tertiary sources who are drawing on recollections of conversations which they have a bias to understand in certain ways or to dismiss. Sort of detective 101 stuff I would think. Better to have the treasure map written by the pirate than to chase the cabin boys retelling of the pirate captain's description of the map.

I see a constant attempt to place equal weight or value on secondary and tertiary statements concerning the experience of the eight witnesses. If we had one of the witnesses write he never actually physically saw the plates, that would be very relevant. To have secondary records by people who are reporting what they remember hearing may be helpful, but unless we have reason to believe the primary source is actually intended to lie or deceive, the primary statement must always trump a secondary source.

Bob

[mfbukowski]

DBMormon,

As a sixth-generation Mormon, Mormonism has plausibility to me at a deeply psychological level. But to someone not raised Mormon, it is alien and implausible. However, plausibility is easy to achieve—it just takes a little imagination or a lot of imagination in JS’s case. Historians are supposed to seek out probable interpretations, not just plausible ones. There are always going to be things that appear to support BOM historicity, but the bulk of the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. There is nothing wrong with writing from a believer’s point of view, but Bushman made the mistake of trying to justify that view as historically reliable.

I really don't understand at all what you are saying. I was probably a twenty generation Catholic- the Poles have been Catholics for at least a thousand years and I am of 100% Polish ancestry. I find Mormonism with its belief in an immanent rather than transcendent God who is human and therefore provides a humanistic model for ideal behavior far more enriching an idea than trying to believe in a bunch of faceless essences.

But I have seen again and again pride, especially from critics, in how many generations back their Mormonism goes. It's peculiar.

My thousand years of ancestry didn't make Catholicism more "plausible" to me at all and I cannot understand why it should. It is also interesting that you seem to self-identify as a "Mormon", which I also find interesting.

It appears that you are saying that your ancestry makes it "plausible" but a flawed historical account (in your opinion) mitigates against plausibility.

But of course Mormonism and the case for it, is not about history at all, as is neither the case for Christianity. Nothing historical can prove that Jesus was the savior of mankind.

So all your post did is leave me confused about your meaning.

Edit- changed typo "did" to "didn't"- big difference-

Thanks tao

Edited August 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

So all your post did is leave me confused about your meaning.

No, mfb, I do not think it did. I think you absolutely nailed the "Appeal to Authority" implicit in the resume building post you quoted.

[DavidB]

i listened to it last night. i have not read RSR, but based on a few things, I think I would be disappointed in the book. "Apologetic" writings can just be silly sometimes, and to speculate as to Joseph Smith actions just seems ridiculous.

As for Vogel, it seemed his main point was to approach RSR and perhaps Mormonism from an intellectual point of view only.

[USU78]

i listened to it last night. i have not read RSR, but based on a few things, I think I would be disappointed in the book. "Apologetic" writings can just be silly sometimes, and to speculate as to Joseph Smith actions just seems ridiculous.

As for Vogel, it seemed his main point was to approach RSR and perhaps Mormonism from an intellectual point of view only.

When in doubt . . . RTB . . . RTB

Vogel would be disappointed if any history or biography in Mormon letters were anything short of a hit piece . . . but I'm highly biased and cannot be trusted.

Edited August 17, 2012 by USU78

[mfbukowski]

No, mfb, I do not think it did. I think you absolutely nailed the "Appeal to Authority" implicit in the resume building post you quoted.

And I imagine Jewish converts could take their Jewishness back a little farther....