Reading Bushman 1
Posted on November 28th, 2005 by Adam Greenwood
Reading Bushman Chapter One
Preface, Prologue, and The Joseph Smith Family
Welcome to our inaugural reading club for Richard Bushman’s Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. To start with I thought we’d cover the preface, the prologue and then the first chapter which is about Joseph Smith’s family. Primarily his parents. I would ask, in advance, that comments stay on topic. We’re not cutting off discussion. But we will delete comments that attempt to go too far astray from the chapter under discussion. We’ll give warnings first. But recognize that we do want to stay on topic and that this is a blog and not a forum. There are lots of LDS oriented blogs if you are more interested in a free flying debate. We’d ask here that comments be a little more thoughtful and directed to the text itself.
My favorite part of this week’s reading was by far the brief character summary Bushman gives of Joseph on page xx of the preface. It really does prepare one for how to consider Joseph, flaws and all.
Joseph Smith did not offer himself as an exemplar of virtue. He told his followers not to expect perfection. Smith called himself a rough stone, thinking of his own impetuosity and lack of polish. He was sensitive to insults and could not stand to be crossed. Twice he was brought to trial before one of his own church councils for scolding offenders too severely. He so dominated the rooms he entered that some thought him arrogant. But it was his iron will that brought the church, the cities, and the temples into existence.
He was warm and affectionate too. He loved to sit in council with his brethren. When imprisoned with group of them he wrote his wife Emma about being chained together in the bonds of love. Letter after letter to Emma expressed affection for here and this children. That his doctrine of plural marriage drove a wedge between the two of them was the great sorrow of his life. He said once to his people, “You never knew my heart.”
Like so many historic figures, his strengths that enabled him to do the historically significant tasks he completed also were weaknesses that undermined his projects and friendships. He was hardly alone in this. But it definitely is a side to Joseph that many might not be aware of. I think that in this one can see parallels to Brigham Young, an other strong personality where the strengths were also weaknesses.
The prologue is rather interesting, and sets up the stakes in the history. It’s also interesting that Quincy, the person writing the account Bushman makes use of, ties Joseph to Emerson. I’ve read numerous parallels between this famous early American and Joseph Smith. It will be interesting to see if Bushman touches upon these parallels in the text to come. Certainly that is a book waiting to be told.
Quincy’s attempts to understand Joseph also highlight the difference in history that Bushman is going for. Quincy (and many other commentators) simply don’t understand at a fundamental level the desire for revelation. There is an aspect of religious seeking that I think many miss. It was interesting that the very warning Emerson made to the intelligensia of his time was reflecting in the religious seeking of Joseph and his followers.
Which brings us to the account of Joseph’s parents. I’d read this information before in his mother’s account of Joseph’s history. But it is still touching to see the many trials that his parents encountered. Joseph Smith Sr.’s business failing and his attempt to meet all his debts rather than fleeing from them really does set up the honesty and honor of the family. At the same time the religious background was very intriguing. They were religious seekers. Many have brought up what some term “magic” but perhaps ought better be termed as hermetic culture and folk superstitions. This context makes sense when you see these people as religious seekers. They sought for satisfaction in Methodism, Universalism, Thomas Pain’s rationalism, and all the other religious currents at the time. The superstitions and folk religions of the era would have been investigated as well. Bushman doesn’t say much about this, but clearly it is important.
The Smiths were exposed to a conglomeration of doctrines and attitudes, some imported from Europe, others springing up up in New England, none sorted or ranked by recognized authority, all available for adoption as personal whim or circumstance dictated. The result was a religious melee.
A few questions to end my comments and engender discussion.
1. Do you think Bushman is true to his aims with dealing with Joseph’s religion as related in the preface? Especially in the accounts of his parents visions and dreams?
2. Do you see parallels between the Smith family and modern religious seekers who examine the variety of religious beliefs ranging from Christian sects, to Buddhism, to New Age beliefs?
3. Bushman doesn’t appear to really explain what it means to be a religious seeker. Is this a flaw? Does Bushman need more of a theoretical scaffold to rest his narrative on?
» Filed Under Any
Comments
55 Responses to “Reading Bushman 1”
Leave a Reply
you can’t wait for my semester to finish up first?
jk… i’ll try to catch up. prolly do the simultaneous bushman/vogel read
I’m nearing the end of this book now, and what becomes more and more clear as you go along is that Bushman has done an excellent job of creating a real live human being for us to consider in Joseph Smith. What I mean by this is that we all have people we admire — bishops, stake presidents, people we work with, family members. From afar, they seem to have few flaws. But as you get closer and spend more time with them, you are exposed to their imperfections. They might yell at their kids or make snide remarks to their spouses or be grouchy when they are tired. In the Church we sometimes build up Joseph Smith into something he was not — a nearly perfect man. Joseph Smith had extraordinary drive, and a long series of qualities that made him a man to admire. His accomplishments truly were remarkable. But as you read this book you come to see that he was not nearly perfect, not by a long shot. But in my opinion, he had the qualities that made him the perfect person to restore the Gospel, and this is key to understanding his place in history.
So, clearly Bushman has succeeded in one of his clear goals as stated in the Preface, to create a real character, flaws and all. This book is guaranteed to tell you things about Joseph Smith you didn’t know before and to play down the heroic side of Joseph as portrayed in Church history.
One of the interesting aspects of chapter one for me was the portrayal of Joseph’s family. One of the issues historians have to tackle is why his family members accepted Joseph’s claims so wholeheartedly. We all know families with strong characters, and very often the strong characters are rejected or disliked by part of the family and liked by the other. But so many of Joseph’s immediate family accepted his vision — that is something that is difficult to explain without feeling that their hearts were somehow changed by the Holy Ghost. Bushman does not tackle this issue directly but does do a good job of giving us a fuller understanding of Joseph’s family history.
I’m about halfway through the book now. Going back and rereading the Preface highlights a few resources that Bushman could call on to write the book that no other prior JS biographer had access to: (1) He already wrote one book on Joseph; (2) he was already an accomplished historian of 19th-century America; (3) he had access to a wide array of LDS scholars and graduate students, many of whom were more than willing to contribute feedback and research time to Bushman’s project; (4) he was part of a network of historians of the highest caliber, several of whom read draft portions of the book, as noted in the Preface; and (5) he had access to the documents pulled together as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project. It’s hard to imagine any subsequent writer who will be able to bring more to a JS biography.
I appreciated Bushman placing Joseph Sr.’s drinking in context. Showing how Joseph Sr. often dealt with feelings of failure in how he was providing for his family. And then examining the relationship between Joseph Sr. and Joseph Jr. and the way Joseph Jr. cared for his father and created experiences where his father could succeed and feel that success.
I also enjoyed the line where Bushman likens Joseph to Lincoln. I don’t have the book in front of me right now but the line was something to the effect that Joseph was one of those great Americans like Lincoln who came from nowhere. I have always been interested by the ability of Joseph, a rural ‘nobody’, to beomce a prophet on the level of Moses (a man bred for leadership and command within pharoah’s home). And the advantages such ‘nobodyness’ gave him in reaching out to the kind of people who built the early church.
The visions of his parents seem so important in why his family accepted him. While Bushman touches on it in one sentence, I really do wonder how much Joseph’s own visions and writings affected the recollection of those earlier visions. As I said they weren’t new to me, having read them in Joseph’s mother’s book. But they do seem to have been colored by the Book of Mormon.
But what does strike me is how open they were to that kind of abstract dreaming. Yeah it’s not that unique. We find symbolic dreams in the old testament for instance. And, I suppose, even the 20th century some psycho-analysis goes for the highly abstract and symbolic dreams. I have to say I’ve never had such a symbolic dream - despite often being oriented towards more abstract thinking. But it was interesting that this highly symbolic way of thinking was part and parcel of Joseph’s background.
As of course critics have mentioned, the Universalist background of Joseph’s grandfather makes for an interesting context for some of the purported anti-universalist rhetoric in the Book of Mormon. (Such as 2 Ne 28:8) I don’t think this is purely anti-universalist. Joseph’s translation, for instance, appears to be more tied to Luke 12:47-48. But I don’t doubt that just at the Bible affected the “how” of Joseph’s translating, so to did his environment. So this environment of his family is especially interesting.
It’s interesting Paul that Joseph has contact with Lincoln and the Whigs. I’ve not got to that part of Bushman yet. But I know in the other book I’ve been reading, Junius and Joseph this Whig connections is discussed a fair bit. So not only do they have many similarities in history but their paths crossed. So far as I know, Joseph’s paths never did cross Emerson, the other figure Bushman brings up.
I think we should consider the fact that rural America in the early 19th century was especially ripe for acceptance of Joseph Smith’s visions in ways that other times may not have been. In the 18th century, such ideas were not as acceptable, and now of course angels and visions are passe. Yet the “burned over” region of upstate New York was a place filled with a magical worldview, and Joseph’s family was more inclined to accept his visions because of that.
Add to that the Smith family history of expecting something great out of its progeny and the visions of Joseph Smith Sr. and you have are more complete picture of a family willing to accept Joseph Smith Jr’s claims.
I still like to believe that his family members, especially his mother and Hyrum and later his father had “burning in the bosum” experiences that is not discussed in the historical record. They were so loyal to him despite adversity that it seems likely to me they had their own confirmations of the truthfulness of Joseph’s experience through the Holy Ghost.
So Joseph’s family had a history of visions, and yet he apparently did not tell them about his visions until years later (or until commanded to, in the case of Moroni.) I see at least three possible explanations: 1. Joseph just kept them private. This is supported by Bushman’s argument that Joseph initially saw the First Vision as forgiveness of personal sin. Restoring a church was not really on his mind at the time. 2. Joseph was commanded to keep them private–at least at first. 3. His father’s visions held no special meaning to the family until re-interpreted in the light of Joseph’s.
Re #7: Remember Joseph Sr. and Hyrum were among the 8 witnesses.
Jared, agreed. Good point.
I wondered about that as well Jared. I suspect it was just very personal. I also suspect that’s why the other Smith family dreams and visions weren’t related until after Joseph’s death - so far as we can tell. For instance the dream of the two trees that his mother had seems to be very personal.
I wonder if Joseph’s comments later in life to the tune of the reason people don’t get more visions is because they can’t keep a secret doesn’t apply. There’s nothing in this chapter which indicates that as a family perspective. But I wonder if that privacy is part of it. Bushman does portray religion for them as very personal.
Clark, I hope you’ll let us know what you think of “Junius and Joseph” when you finish it (if not sooner).
I finished about half of it a couple of months ago and just haven’t had time to get back to it. Thus far I really like it. It’s a tad dry in some respects. But I prefer having more information to the perhaps more readable but terser kind of history book.
I think Dave (#3) makes a shrewd and basically accurate observation in drawing attention to the many resources Bushman had at his disposal in crafting this book. No one would argue that Bushman had more resources than any previous JS biographer, but I think Dave makes an unwarranted leap when he concludes that “it’s hard to imagine any subsequent writer who will be able to bring more to a JS biography.” When the JS Papers series is finally published, some future biographer will have all that annotation as grist for the mill. That counts for something. Perhaps more documents will surface. We can’t say for sure if something like the Smith Institute will rise again for support. And we will undoubtedly produce more Ivy League-trained historians–though admittedly there seems to be something special about Bushman’s gifts. If something is hard to imagine, it is another Mormon historian with Bushman’s combination of graceful style and synthetic genius.
Oopps — #14 line 3 should read “No one would argue that Bushman had fewer resources than any previous biographer…”
I am struck by this line: “Reared a Unitarian, Quincy could not understand the desire for revelation in his time” (5).
The implication is that Mormonism will have more or less religious appeal to people from different Christian denominations. Is this true to experience? It is an interesting idea. In this account, the tradition into which someone is born–in this case, Unitarianism, standing for wealth, privilege, and education–is as much responsible for the non-appeal of Mormonism as is the proverbial hard heart. The notion comes close to William James idea about “live” and “dead” beliefs in his essay “The Will to Believe.” Cultural factors explain why Mormon beliefs are alive or dead to different Christians just as they are for Muslims or Jews.
I think Flummox, it really depends upon what people want from religion. I think the rationalism inherent in Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason was not satisfying for many. A lot of the early LDS criticisms (and often caricatures) of Christianity are in opposition to that tendency in Christianity. I think that the 20th century shows that the forms of Christianity that are most healthy are those that demand more divine intervention than many were willing to accept in the 19th century. Of course Joseph Smith and the Mormons were not the only religious seekers of this sort.
William James is interesting since he, like Peirce and others, was exposed to Emerson and the transcendentalists who offered a more living philosophy. (Basically a variant on neoPlatonism) James father was also a Swedenborg follower and actually wrote a book on the subject. And, to make the circle somewhat complete, not only were those interested in Swedenborg also religious seekers of the sort that I think Bushman is getting at, but there were many interesting parallels between Swedenborg’s views and Joseph Smith’s. (As well as significant and important differences) A major influence on all the American pragmatists, as well as certain strains of German thought was Schelling who was quite influenced by Swedenborg as well.
Clark: “I think that the 20th century shows that the forms of Christianity that are most healthy are those that demand more divine intervention than many were willing to accept in the 19th century.”
For example? I suppose it depends on how you define “healthy.” One might also argue the counter, namely, that, in the 20th c, Unitarian-types are often the pacifists, while people with a Christian mandate tend to see the world through apocalyptic lenses and are thus more inclined to view war as inevitable. Claims to revelation have also produced devastating results in the 20th c, Jim Jones and David Koresh being but two examples.
1. What is the purpose of that last little paragraph in the Prologue noting JSmith’s bare-boned diary entry about Quincy and Adams (7). Why does Bushman end with “Much rain this A.M”?
2. A question about fate and counterfactual history. Let’s assume JS Sr. doesn’t lose his ginseng to a bad business deal. He makes $ instead of losing it and is able to pay off his inventory of commercial goods. The Smith family keeps the store and farm in Randolph. Since from an LDS point of view the Smiths have to end up in Palmyra for JS Jr to be in position to get the plates, are we to conclude that God willed Sr. to get jilted as a prompt to move? Similarly, do you think the devastating Year without a Summer (1816) and the explosion at Mt Tambora in Indonesia that accounted for it were necessary to get the Smiths to migrate to Western NY?
Flumox, I think more conservative religions like Evangelicalism, Assemblies of God and so forth are doing better whereas the main Protestant movements that I think one encounters in the 1830’s and 1840’s have been in decline of numbers for some time. Of course one could argue that the tent revivals of the era were the forebearers of modern Evangelicalism. By healthy I just meant the relative growth rate of the churches, not any claims about their beliefs.
The point being that “rational religion” in the sense discussed in that early 19th century era does not appear to ultimately be satisfying for the religious drive in people. Of course that says nothing abut the religious drive nor why it is so. I think that’s a matter that a lot of speculations about evolutionary theory have raised.
Act One, that’s a good question and I don’t know. I think that members have different views on this. Some members have an almost Calvinistic belief regarding how much control over events God has. I tend to favor the idea that he is much more hands off. Then there is the issue of foreknowledge. i.e. for those who accept a robust or at least extensive foreknowledge, God could have placed the Smiths in places where he knew those events would occur without being their cause. Although there are still issues of responsibility - but it’s an interesting and perhaps complex philosophical question.
But I’m not sure there is an answer to your question. My personal opinion is that there were backups had Joseph chose not to do what he did and that there were multiple ways to Joseph (or others) around the plates. Or, alternatively, God simply saw the future of where the Smiths would be and had Moroni walk there. So had Smith Sr.’s luck been different then Moroni would have gone elsewhere.
To the Quincy journal, I think the idea was that the event that was so important to Quincy wasn’t to Joseph. That is, he was so sure of himself and his mission that this was of no note. It’s an interesting rhetorical flourish and I’m glad you brought it up.
A question I have for those who may be more familiar with the primary sources for the early days of Joseph Smith’s life is whether the Lucy Mack Biography is the only first-hand account of the the family’s experiences when Joseph was a youngster. Bushman relies very heavily on Lucy Mack Smith and she is in fact the sole source for much of his material in the early chapters of RSR. I wonder if this is of necessity or by choice. Either way, one criticism I have is that I think Bushman should, if not in the text then at least in the notes, explain the limitations of using Lucy Mack Smith as his sole source for a number of events. I understand that aspects of Lucy’s history have been questioned at various times by parties both friendly and unfriendly to the church, and at the very least Bushman could comment about the reliability, potential bias, and controversy among historians on this source.
There were times when I was reading these first chapters where Bushman would state something surprising to me as a matter of fact (I don’t have the book with me so can’t cite specific instances here); I would look to the endnotes and see that he had cited Lucy Mack Smith as the sole source. I am not faulting Bushman for relying on Lucy Mack Smith so heavily if she is in fact the only source for some of this material; I just think he ought to let the reader know of the limitations this necessarily produces.
Re: 3, 14, 22, etc.: Although I have not put the question to him directly, my understanding is that Richard reviewed all existing material that will go into the JS Papers. Obviously, he did not have available whatever annotations may be added when all of the Papers are published, nor as yet undiscovered documents. Given the intensity of Mormon history research in recent decades, for now I would have to say that uncovering significant new documents is unlikely. And annotations to the Papers may give context and perspective, but in the end are secondary. Therefore I thnk that it is reasonable to argue that it will be long time before new research will supercede RSR.
Re : 19.2: As Clark notes in #21, this poses some interesting philosophical issues. However, leaving those aside for now, one might note that most of Joseph, Sr.’s immediate and extended family had already migrated to western New York before him for a variety of reasons, so it is not unreasonable to imagine that other circumstances would have gotten this last of the Smith families to the area by the early 1820s.
I liked one part of the book that mentioned Joseph Smith’s personality and strengths/weaknesses in comparison to Hyrum Smith’s personality and strengths/weaknesses. I got the impression that these two men were meant to go through life together and influence each other. I’ll try and find the specific quote at some point and write it in here.
Eric S.
Who would be a better source for the history of a prophet than the prophets mother? She was preordained to be the mother of the prophet of the restoration. She agreed to rear him with integrity and the Lord blessed her with all she needed. If Bushman, a faithful preisthood holder and qualified historian, can’t rely on her account, what would be better?
Eric S.: “One crisply told story after another covered the pages, making her narrative the central source for the early life of Jospeh Smith.” (9)
The endnote directs readers to Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book, which talks about the accuracy of Mother Smith’s memory.
What are Lavina Andersons qualifications?
She edited the book. The book is collections of papers by various historians. (For the record I’ve not read it)
#27 and #28. Clark, you may be thinking of a different book, Mormon Mavericks, edited by Anderson. Lucy’s Book is Lucy Mack Smith’s family history set in parallel columns–manuscript and published version. Anderson is the sole editor. She has a long introduction (100+ pp)where she analyzes the text in light of Mormon women’s history/contemporary textual analysis, etc. It is a fine work. As for her qualifications, the work should speak for itself, MEK; take a look. But FYI Anderson is editor of the Journal of Mormon History.
#27 MEK:
This is what I have found out about Lavina Fielding Anderson. Born in 1944 she is a Latter Day Saint scholar, writer, editor, and feminist. Anderson holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Washington. Her editing credits include Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective (1987) and Tending the Garden: Essays on Mormon Literature (1996), as well as the Ensign (magazine), Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Women ’s Forum Quarterly, and Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance. In 2001, Anderson published a critical edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s memoir: Lucy’s book: A critical edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s family memoir (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001).
Anderson is one of the original trustees of the Mormon Alliance, founded in 1992 to document cases of spiritual and ecclesiastical abuse in the LDS Church. In 1993, Anderson published a chronology documenting cases of what she regarded as spiritual abuse by LDS church leaders during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. This article became grounds for her excommunication on charges of apostasy in September 1993, as one of the September Six. Anderson remains as active in the LDS Church as her excommunicant status allows; she has been described by Levi S. Peterson (1996) as exemplary of an emerging “church in exile” composed of faithful excommunicants.
Why is this relevant to the discussion of the Prologue and first chapter of RSR? Here is why I think it may be relevant. My point above was not that I thought Professor Bushman improperly used Lucy Mack Smith as a source to the exclusion of others. My suspicion (confirmed by JWL) was that he relied so heavily on Lucy Mack Smith because for many details she was the only source available. flummox adds a quote from page 9 of the book that indicates Professor Bushman’s appreciation for the narrative flow of Lucy Mack Smith’s work. I checked last night the note referenced in the text quoted by flummox. Professor Bushman does mention that there is more than one version of the Lucy Mack Smith book and he does reference the Anderson book but he makes no further comment about this source that is central to the early part of RSR.
My question is really an historiographical one (full disclosure: I have a B.A. and an M.A. in History) and I admit I like these sorts of “nuts and bolts” questions about the process of creating an historical monograph of this magnitude. I commend Professor Bushman for what is a monumental achievement in so many ways. And if I sound like I am picking at nits, be assured that I recognize that indeed I am. On the whole, RSR is, I believe, by far the best single-volume history of the Prophet Joseph Smith produced to date, and I believe it will hold this place of high honor for many years to come. So the questions I raise or criticisms I level should be considered with that caveat in mind.
My historiographical question has both a general and a specific component. Generally, does an historian, when relying upon a sole source, have an obligation to inform the reader of any controversies that surround that source? Is a reference in the notes to another work that considers the credibility and biases of the source sufficient? Specifically, with respect to Lucy Mack Smith as the sole source for much of what is in chapter 1 of RSR, should Professor Bushman have commented on the credibility and bias of this source? Does he question the credibility of other “sole sources” in the work?
The information on Lavina Fielding Anderson may be relevant to this question because some have argued that what happened to the September Six could have a chilling effect on historical research conducted and published by faithful LDS scholars. The bulk of RSR seems to argue against the notion that Professor Bushman was fearful of retribution for publishing historical information not typically found in correlated church manuals. But is it possible that, on this point, Professor Bushman was influenced by what happened to Professor Anderson? Is it unfair for historians analyzing Professor Bushman’s work to ask whether Professor Bushman may have been reticent to discuss the potential deficiencies in Lucy Mack Smith’s source material out of a (quite reasonable, IMO) fear of potential retribution from his eccelesiastical leaders?
Is there any disclosure or known professional relationship between Bushman and Lavina Anderson?
Eric S., The September Six is a bit of a sore subject for many, quite frankly, I wonder what your point was in bringing it up. Though I am curious to know how this research by Bushman compares to the publications of those authors or to the shorter, simpler assessment of historical information published by Grant Palmer, who remains a faithful member.
I happen to know that Bushman is a Stake Patriarch. Is his position disclosed in the book, and do eclisiastical assignments have any bearing on his credibility outside of his Mormon peers and audience?
I wouldn’t think a Mormon’s religious background is anymore relevant than the religious background of Catholic or Protestant authors.
Richard has no formal affiliation with Lavina that I am aware of other than that they are both active in the MHA. However, he certainly knows her personally. It would be practically impossible for two people who have been as active as they both have been in Mormon history for as long as they have been not to know each other.
The fact that Richard is a practicing Mormon is disclosed several places in the book, including on the dust jacket. His specific current church position is not mentioned because non-LDS readers would not understand its significance and probably be confused by it. How his religious faith affects the book is one of the great over-arching questions that I am sure will come up repeatedly as this online book club continues. Based on some personal acquaintance with both Richard and the process of writing this book, it is my opinion that he has forthrightly put forth his honest best understanding of the facts without regard for any outside reaction. He expected, and has received, negative reactions from both Mormons (e.g. why did you have to put so much about polygamy in there?) and non-Mormons (e.g. several reviewers who already have accused him of putting too sympathetic a spin on controversial episodes such as polygamy). Clearly, this is an aspect of the story which is still unfolding.
PS — Note that the mentions of polygamy above are strictly illustrative. I believe that we have concluded that we will postpone substantive discussion of that topic until we reach those chapters in the book.
JWL, I would have to say that Bushman, more than any other biographer of Joseph Smith whom I have read, relies on the available primary sources. There is relatively little speculation going on about Joseph’s motives or what he was thinking, etc (think about Fawn Brodie as a comparison). From my understanding of the history, there are literally dozens of faith-promoting stories about Joseph that are not included in this history or are downplayed to keep the tone scholarly and impartial, as you note. Critics will have to gnaw at the edges of this book (as Eric S is trying very hard to do), but they will never land a direct blow because it is simply too well researched and complete. I predict that the critics will end up ignoring it in the end because they will not be able to contradict it. And that’s how criticism of the Church has gone since Joseph Smith’s day.
On the surface that sounds believable. And for the most part I agree.
However, the history of the New York Yankees as written by a New Yorker may vary from the franchise’s history as written by a Los Angeles Dodger fan. In this case, its not a question of being Mormon or Methodist when one considers that he is a Patriarch.
How is it feasible to explain the position of a prophet, or president of a church, but confusing to describe a Patriarch? That seemed like a silly dismissal of a relevent point to his credibility.
There are many elements to this book that humanize Joseph Smith. For some, hearing it from a faithful member prompts them to conclude that he must have been a prophet, otherwise a man with such faults could not have such accomplishments.
I wonder what reactions would be if Krakauer had written the same words?
The one problem any historian faces is when there are few facts and one must infer. I think criticizing the early visions as coming from a single source 40 years after the fact is fair. As is the suggestion that Lucy’s accounts may have been colored by the Book of Mormon.
I do think all historians have biases. I don’t mind that so long as they are disclosed, as I feel Bushman did. To what degree it affects his text is of course a matter of debate. I think he does far less fitting into a preconceived mold than many other historians do who have to explain how Joseph fits into a naturalistic worldview. (Say, Dan Vogel) Once again there’s nothing wrong with that. I prefer one that holds such questions in abeyance and instead tries to present the figures as they and their contemporaries would have viewed them. There I think Bushman does an outstanding job, from what I’ve read thus far.
With regards to the “nuts and bolts” of history. I confess I do wish Bushman talked about those issues more. But the fact is that you can have a readable, easy flowing text, or you can have breaks about all these issues. I wish that the footnotes were more extensive with more commentary than simply “Dan Vogel argues oppositely” or the like. Of course that would have ballooned the size tremendously. And as both Nibley and Quinn demonstrate, extensive footnotes don’t necessarily improve things.
I suspect I mind it less in Bushman simply because this biography isn’t treading new ground, which has largely been debated. Rather it is popularizing information that’s been around for decades. As such it corresponds more the popular histories of Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams or others that have come out the last 5 years or so. So I contrast it with other histories I tend to read where I think the arguments have to have a larger place in the narrative.
Geoff B., I think these are two different things. On the first, I would have to disagree. I think other biographers, including Brodie, have relied heavily on primary sources. That Professor Bushman’s work benefits from the unearthing of additional primary sources not available to previous biographers I think is a fair point to make, and one that contributes to the strength of the work. Your second point I agree with generally. Professor Bushman does write without the kind of rampant speculation in which Brodie engaged (hers could properly be characterized as psychohistory ala Young Man Luther, while Porfessor Bushman is crafting what he terms a “cultural” biography. This raises an interesting tangential question: what exactly is a cultural biography and why does Prof. Bushman emphasize that this is what he is producing?)
This is a fascinating observation, Geoff B. What are its implications? If there is evidence that the faith-promoting stories in question actually occurred, why would Prof. Bushman leave them out of his narrative? If there is no such evidence that they actually occurred, is he not justified in keeping them out of his narrative? And what does it say about other histories given of the Prophet that do include such stories–are such histories reliable? As an LDS historian should Prof. Bushman be guided by the principles and standards of his profession, or should he be guided by higher principles of his faith; i.e., should he include faith-promoting stories that might serve to bolster the faith of his LDS readership even where such stories might not merit inclusion if he follows strictly the standards of his profession?
I agree that I am, thus far, gnawing at the edges of the book. As I have said, it is overall a fine specimen of historical scholarship, and it is deserving of high praise. However, I would disagree that it requires great effort to gnaw at the edges of the book–such criticism comes quite easily to me after many years of reading and analyzing historical works. I am not sure I agree that the goal of those who analyze and criticize academic scholarship is to “land a direct blow.” In fact, I am not quite sure what you mean by this.
Geoff B., Honestly I can’t make any sense of these statements. You assume that people will only criticize something they can contradict? And if they can’t contradict it they willignore it? And that critics have been unable to contradict the church since Joseph Smith’s day and so have decided to ignore the church? This does not square with either my own experience or with observable historical reality, which clearly shows that critics have not ceased contradicting and criticizing the church since Joseph Smith’s day–far from ignoring it, they have never left it alone.
anon, I think that Prof. Bushman and Mr. Palmer (with all due respect to Mr. Palmer) are not in the same league when it comes to depth of scholarship and professionalism of presentation. I am not taking any potshots at Grant Palmer’s work, just saying that Prof. Bushman is an eminently qualified and highly respected professor of history at an Ivy League school; Mr. Palmer is, umm, not. BTW, I believe Mr. Palmer was disfellowshipped or excommunicated for his work. I guess this could have some bearing on this RSR discussion for the same reason that Lavina Fielding Anderson’s excommunication might be relevant (see above post); namely, the potential chilling effect such church discipline may be having on LDS scholarship generally, the effect it may have had on Prof. Bushman specifically, and the potential “thawing” effect that RSR might have the same.
Clark, I think this one is too easy. Do you want to re-think this statement? I agree with everything you say in your post #36.
Eric S, I can’t respond to this without getting off-track. Let’s concentrate on the first few sections of Bushman right now. Thanks.
frist thought:
i enjoyed the preface and prolouge, but the first chapter was a little dry for me. I think I apreciated it more later as interactions with the family and family failure and background reverberate through Josephs biography. At that point in reading I didn’t know that the author was fleshing out a human jospeh smith and the background was needed, and I apreciated that because he doesn’t seem to be written in 3-d in a lot of accounts. I wanted it to get to it’s analysis of the first vision and Book of mormon, things I find more interesting
Second thought
When will the new york times review this book? I think I enjoy reading review of the book just as much as the book. I have some interests in how sceptics and beleivers react, but more of the general reader. I wonder how it would be for aperson that picks this up at a barnes and nobel in New York. I wonder if this book will be something a general reader would be interested in.
This discussion has taken a very odd turn….
Is there something I am missing here?
I loved the image of Joseph pulling the covers up over the head of a sleeping guest so he could talk with his visitors. It seems to me an illustration of his pragmatism and his prioritization of the present, and provides a very positive humanization of the prophet, setting the tone for the book as a whole (and, IMO, providing a great counterexample to those who are concerned that “humanizing” a prophet necessarily lowers our estimation of him).
Ryan, the first chapter is a tad dry in that it is rather “contextualizing” later events. I think the next three chapters will be a tad more interesting due to getting to the heart of what we are interested in. Still, I really think understanding Joseph’s parents helps us understand Joseph.
Eric, I stand by the statement. I think knowing the religion is relevant, but not tremendously so. I do feel that a non-Mormon could write well about Mormonism. (And indeed I know of non-Mormons I feel do write well about Mormonism) I’ve read biographies about people who are visionary or mystic where the author probably didn’t agree with the “reality” of those views, but was able to be quite fair to the person written about. I read a recent book on Schelling and Swedenborg for instance that I think did that. But there are biographies of William Blake, Ann Lee, and others that either I’ve read and think capture their views quite well or else I’ve been told do so. I think the idea that the biographer must take a stance towards these issues is simply incorrect. As I said, I understand those biographers who feel a need to do so. But I also feel that in a certain sense they loose something in the biography. Further I think readers are typically wise enough to be able to figure things out themselves. I should note that Bushman, in the introduction, points to a biography of Mohammed by an atheist which he sets as his goal with this book.
Clark, having re-read your original statement and seeing your elucidation of it in #43, I guess I am inclined to agree. I would say that the religious background of the author is relevant but no more relevant that he is a Mormon than if he were something else. it is a piece of information that can go into the analytical mix in reviewing the book. Was Brodie’s Mormonism relevant to her biography of Joseph Smith? Her relation to David O. McKay? The fact that she was not a faithful Lattter-day Saint and Professor Bushman is? What about the fact that Jan Shipps is a Methodist? Is this fact relevant when analyzing her works on Joseph Smith and Mormon history? I think these facts do inform the reader about potential biases of the author and so are relevant.
But I also agree with you, Clark, that more relevant is the author’s approach to the subject and to history generally. I like Bushman’s approach, which is to take Joseph Smith at face value, letting the facts speak for themselves, if you will, and allowing the reader to fill in the gaps (this is not to say that Bushman does not “interpret” the source material and color it and spin it a certain way–all historians do this). Indeed, I think approaching the material this way makes it interesting and relevant for a very broad audience, and is a remarkable feat.
This may be OT, but I think that Bushman’s approach allows both those who believe fervently in the divine mission of Joseph Smith and those who do not to see the same set of facts and justify their own perceptions of the Prophet. It is interesting to me that in discussing this book with both believers and skeptics that Bushman has succeeded both in removing some of the shine off the believers’ image of the Prophet and also altered the anti-Mormon perception of him as a scrofulous rogue. At the same time, believers and skeptics can read RSR and come away increasngly entrenched in their prior assessments of the Prophet. I am not sure whether this tells us more about Bushman’s book or the people who read it.
Eric, I think you are arguing with generalities where the original argument was arguing specifics. The truth of it is that people can only criticize things they can contradict or there wouldn’t be much of a criticism. Secondly, critics of the LDS Church have certainly not ignored the Church, but they HAVE ignored evidence and aspects of the Church that run counter to their preconcieved arguments. Of course, so have Mormons at times.
What is absolutely surprising about the comments so far is the idea that Bushman’s book is a new thing for faithful Mormon scholarship. Those who make a critique based on the observation that Joseph’s flaws were never discussed by “believing biographers” are at least 15 years behind in their readings. True, he is groundbreaking by putting it all together under one volume and happens to have a wonderful authorial voice. However, his studies and approach are not much different than other “faithful” studies done over the years. His acceptance by the more stalwart members, such as myself, is evidence that the less than perfect or mythical versions of Joseph Smith have not been in vogue for some time. The problems that believers have had with treatments of a less than perfect Joseph has not been the imperfections. It has been with the idea that his imperfections were achilles heals rather than personality traits. Bushman has expressed exactly what faithful members have been saying for years, Joseph Smith can be considered a prophet despite his flaws rather than he could never be a prophet because of them. This biography is nothing new in the land except for those who haven’t been paying attention to recent developments in Mormon believing historography.
Jettboy: “The problems that believers have had with treatments of a less than perfect Joseph has not been the imperfections. It has been with the idea that his imperfections were achilles heals rather than personality traits.”
I think this is basically true. Believing and unbelieving historians marshall the same evidence in support of very different conclusions. If the Kirtland bank fiasco reduces Joseph to nothing but a man in one person’s eyes, it leads someone else to conclude, “So what? Did he ever claim he was not liable to err?” The bright-eyed optimists will even claim the fiasco was necessary to try the Saints or purge the church of impure elements.
Jettboy: “However, his studies and approach are not much different than other “faithful” studies done over the years.”
I can see what you are saying, but this probably underestimates Bushman’s contribution. A glance at the bibliography reveals many titles coming out of the New Mormon History, showing the kindred spirit idea you are espousing. But the bibliography also has many, many secondary works that have probably never been linked to Joseph Smith before now. There is a good deal of context that would appear to be new.
If you have known Bushman’s works and those he sometimes colaborated with over the years, most of the secondary works aren’t that new. Reading this book has been much like reading the condensed form of a 20 year discussion. My guess is that many who have posted haven’t read much BYU Studies or FARMS material over the years. By the way, when you say “New Mormon History,” you have to acknowledge the split camps or you will be missing my point.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the book and his writing(s). However, I think most here are kneejerk responding to something that has been slowly building for years. If I didn’t like his work so much to begin with, I would be yawning out of the sheer repetition of information.
I tend to agree with Jetboy. As with most good, well written biographies, the emphasis is less on a “new take” or new evidence than on clear presentation. While there may be indeed some new information, I’ve not found any yet. There is also precious little model explanation. That is, taking some theory from psychology, social science, economics or the like and explaining Joseph in terms of that. While I sometimes enjoy those sorts of histories, I also think that for a biography of this sort that lack of explanatory models is actually quite helpful.
If there is anything new in approach, it is the taking Joseph Smith’s religious history, teachings, and goals seriously without neglecting the personality.
I think it is true that there is no great new revelation about the life of Joseph Smith in RSR. For a number of years now, historians (both LDS and non-LDS) have been writing about the things Professor Bushman covers in his book. Some who read RSR may be learning for the first time that Joseph Smith drank wine the night before he died, that he had many wives, including some who were married to other men (note: not an attempted threadjack, just including as part of a list to make a valid point), that he ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor because it was going to print revelations about his polygamous marriages and about the fact that he had been crowned “King of the World” by the Council of Fifty (long before Leonardo DiCaprio usurped the title). Others are already familiar with these things.
What is new is that RSR is reaching a larger, broader audience than any of the works produced in the last 20 years on Joseph Smith. Bushman has produced a work that is being read and appreciated by rank-and-file Latter-day Saints, academics, and a general, non-LDS audience as well. Weaving together the scraps of information that have been created by many scholars over the last few decades into a complete tapestry is what is new here.
Even that’s not that new Eric, as there have been other biographies the last 5 years that have addressed those issues. I think the difference is that Bushman’s produced the rarity - a biography that is comprehensive, fair, and very readable for a lay audience. That’s something to be quite proud of and is a balancing act hard to complete.
I am inclined to agree with you, Clark. I didn’t mean to say that no one has tried to put all these things together into one cohesive package until RSR, just that I don’t think anyone before Bushman succeeded.
And, OT, I appreciate your willingness to step in and defend your moderating position on Ned Flanders’ blog. I think you should use your comments policy as a guide and apply it evenhandedly in deciding whether to delete comments or leace them up, and I don’t think that was done with some of my earlier comments that were apparently deleted by another moderator here, but I do sympathize with the difficulty in making this judgment call, especially when someon may be posting under multiple pseudonyms and you have some negatvie history with one of those pseudonyms.
While this question may apply to the book in its entirety, and not just these sections, would you recommend this book to a prospective missionary? Would you gift it to a missionary now serving? What effect would this book have an a missionary that has graduated from seminary and attended only a few University classes?
It really depends upon the missionary, LBJ. One problem missionaries face that others don’t is being able to contextualize thing. That is, who do they talk to? For the most part only other missionaries. Further a lot of missions have rules about what books to read. I wouldn’t have minded it on my mission. But I think it varies according to the person.
FWIW, current prices:
RSR
$35.00 list / $29.75 DeseretBook.com / $23.10 Amazon.com
DOM & Rise of Modern Mormonism
$29.95 list / $29.95 DeseretBook.com / $19.77 Amazon.com