Re-reading “Rough Stone Rolling:” a great way to study Church history
About a week ago, I started re-reading Bushman’s classic Joseph Smith biography “Rough Stone Rolling.” I figured this would be a great way to get some good background for the gospel doctine lessons we will be participating in this year as we study Church history and the Doctrine & Covenants.
Re-reading “Rough Stone Rolling” is a mind-blowing experience: there are things I want to blog about on virtually every page. So, I will probably be referring to the book a lot this year. But one subject needs to be addressed right away, it seems to me: the early Saints’ view of nationalism vis-a-vis the United States. As Bushman says: “The United States figured only as one of the unnamed nations that were to suffer in the last days.” (p. 191)
It seems to me essential to get your mind around the concept that the early Saints were not what you would call, er, “nationalistic Americans.” They were all about setting up Zion, the New Jerusalem, which had nothing to do with modern-day nationalistic borders. Here’s how Bushman describes it:
For Mormons, the United States was but one country among the ‘nations of the earth,’ and like the others must hearken or face extinction. The righteous, the revelations said, would be gathered from all nations. The United States had no special part in the early millennial revelations. In the first few years, America was not even named. The only quasi-national division that mattered was the divide between Israel and the Gentiles, with America on the Gentile side. The United States government in all of its democratic glory was not the model for Zion; the value of the Constitution as the ‘law of man’ was acknowledged only later, after the Missouri persecutions.
Mormons these days are among the most patriotic Americans, so much of this language sounds foreign to us. But we ignore our own history at our peril. When Brigham Young led the Saints out of Nauvoo and to Utah, he was leaving the United States, turning his back on the country that had allowed the “extermination order” in Missouri and had refused repeated requests for justice. It was the United States that imposed itself on the Saints again and again in the late 19th century, ignoring Abraham Lincoln’s famous policy of basically ignoring the Mormons. Seen from this perspective, can you see how many early Saints saw the United States as the enemy?
Times have changed, of course, and in most ways for the better. Saints can form Zion in their homes and in their communities without being tarred and feathered and without suffering the persecution of past years.
Personally, I consider myself a patriotic American, and I love my country. Most Americans reading this probably agree. But it is important, I think, to recognize that God loves people more than nations. Zion is about God’s individual relationship with people, whom He believes have the potential to grow into Gods. National borders are a footnote in that greater relationship, which lasts for eternity.
I am aware of all of the references in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere to the Americas being special lands. I believe they are. I am also aware of the many admonitions from Joseph Smith all the way to Thomas S. Monson telling us to be good citizens. I agree that is essential, and I try to do my best to participate in the American political process as much as possible.
Personally, I think the United States has a special place right now in world history and has served as a vehicle for spreading democracy and freedom worldwide. I think of the U.S. as a latter-day Cyrus, being used by the Lord for a special purpose in preparing the world for the return of the Savior.
But as we fulfill our roles as good citizens and as we honor our country, I do think it’s important to have balance and remember our history. Our relationship with God is more important than our relationship with our country, and the early Saints understood that quite clearly.
Good idea. I think I’ll do that too.
It is a great book and I am glad we have it. But t does tend to flatten the transcendence in the Joseph Smith story. I think our traditional church history that is heavily dominated by Wilford Woodruff is a very valuable history of the transcendence of the Restoration.
I’ll be reading it with you—just don’t go too fast!
I suggested to a member of my ward that he should read the book. He is a former seminary teacher and had never heard of it. Given your challenge to re-read the book, I think this person will have to buy his own copy so I can re-read it with you.
I realize that the Bushman is a member in good standing, and that “Rough Stone Rolling” is a faithful history. But, I’ve run into one member who considers Bushman to be an apostate for publishing something that goes into more historical detail than the correlated material that the church has hitherto published.
Bushman does a lot of good when he explains the context of some of the historical events in order to counter the slanderous twists that critics of the church put on those events. I’m not sure where this particular member is coming from, but he claims those things just didn’t occur at all since they are not in the church’s correlated published history.
I write this just to let others be aware that many members who have not studied church history outside of Sunday school and Institute classes are not aware of many historical events, and don’t realize that what critics (ie, anti-mormons) have often done is twist events rather than make them up entirely.
In other words, the proper rejoinder to many anti-mormon claims is not to say the event didn’t happen at all, but that the spin the anti’s put on it is not right.
So what happened with this member, is that when I started quoting Bushman, this guy threatened to “report me” to the stake president for apostasy and spreading falsehoods. (Ok, so he’s a jerk anyway.)
So be aware that not everyone realizes that “Rough Stone Rolling” is a _faithful_ history.
In my experience, not many members know about Rough Stone Rolling, including many of our ward “scriptorians” who are quite knowledgeable about other things. (I would say it is about the same number as who are familiar with the limited geography model for the Book of Mormon.)
What a coincidence! Just last night I was reading from that book and what exact passage was I reading, why the one you quoted! Weird, huh?
At any rate, as an anarchist, I found it refreshing to read their view of the nations of the earth as ephemeral, I believe that is how Bushman put it. They were focused on the ideal and wanted no substitutes (or, at least, Joseph didn’t.) Yes, Mormons have done a complete about face concerning how they view these (currently) united States. And we have been treated nicely lately, despite the bad press received last year.
I just wonder, though, whether the “change” coming in two weeks will bode well enough with us so that we remain “patriotic citizens” or whether many LDS are about to adopt the views of the former saints? Time will tell.
Last week, I gave my copy of RSR to a good friend who was recently called as Gospel Doctrine instructor. He said he appreciated it (we’ve talked about the book before), but wanted me to assure him that it wouldn’t get him into any “controversy.” I assured him that it will be a great reference for his study of church history - and that it increased my testimony of the Restoration as well as Joseph Smith as prophet.
Anyhow, Geoff B., I totally agree that RSR is a great way to study Church history in general. I walked away with a better understanding of the whole picture - Palmyra, Kirtland, Missouri, Nauvoo… Now, I need to go replace my copy. Amazon, here I come . . .
I agree about the value of Rough Stone Rolling, though I wouldn’t want it to be my only reference.
I’m less sure that Brigham Young and the saints were “leaving” the US. I think that Manifest Destiny (the idea that the US would eventually go from sea to sea) was pretty widely held at the time. I think it likely that most people recognized that sooner or later the area that the saints were heading too would become part of the US, but that is just my opinion.
Awesome! I borrowed my grandfather’s copy a bit after RSR came out and I devoured it. There have been several times that I’ve wanted to go back and reread sections, but I don’t have it! I’ll hopefully see Grandpa on Sunday. I do believe I will borrow it again!
Thanks Geoff. Great idea I plan ot re-read it again. I look forward to reading more posts on RSR.
I just ordered a copy, along with a handful of other Bushman books for under $40 including shipping. I love Abebooks.com (except for their capacity to spam me no matter how many times I demand they stop).
Looking forward to them.
At a Duke University lecture on RSR, Bro. Bushman, in response to a question, said he didn’t anticipate non-Mormon scholars using RSR in preference to “No Man Knows My History”. What a shame; it is certainly a more balanced historical account of Joseph Smith’s life.
I am dissapointed in many aspects of Rough Stone Rolling. A friend of mine (Mark Smith) said it best regarding Bushman and Rough Stone Rolling:
“Nearly all documentation of history is subjective. The writer of historical books must make many, sometimes thousands per book, decisions regarding the great many sources of information concerning the subject matter. He has to decide which version or versions of what happened on a particular day are worthy of consideration and inclusion in the writer’s book. Very often there are a score or more different accounts as to a particular day’s events. Authors totally ignore and refrain from including the versions, which the writer personally, subjectively, decides are not trustworthy. This is especially true of Mormon history.
Richard Bushman decided that Joseph Smith’s own version, meaning the Church’s version, in regard to many extremely significant facts, is not worthy of inclusion in his book.
It is not that he set-forth various versions including the Church’s. Instead, he totally ignored and omitted the Church’s own version. The fact that the Church’s version could be seen as self-serving has nothing to do with inclusion. When history is written by honest historians, autobiography statements, for example, are always included as one of the viewpoints.
Bushman knew in advance that Rough Stone Rolling would be the most disseminated and read book ever written about the Prophet Joseph Smith, particularly outside the membership of the Church. His omission of the truth, i.e., the Church’s and Joseph’s version, is unforgivable.”
Jay haldeman
I find it interesting that your friend condemns Bushman for taking a point of view when your friend has taken a point of view — particularly that the Church’s version of events was identical to that Joseph told himself, and that that version is complete and unaltered truth.
I’m almost done with the book, and I’ve enjoyed the experience quite a lot. I do find that the events it describes that I’d heard of before now make more sense than they did before, and have not found that the Church’s version is unrepresented in the discussion. Speaking just for me, I didn’t really need the Church’s version particularly emphasized, because I was already rather familiar with it. What I did find quite useful was presenting the more critical claims made against Joseph and where those claims came from, and, on balance, finds in favor of Joseph.
I think it’s important to point out that Bushman is one of the most respected historians around today. The reason is that he concentrates on the available original documents rather than other peoples’ interpretations of “history.” Think about it: how do we really know what happened in 1830? Well, we can rely on many of the scurrilous, untruthful “interpretations” of the events, which are often wrong — or we can rely on the actual diaries, newspaper accounts and other original sources. I prefer the latter. Latter-day Saint history is much more likely to be taken seriously if we taken into account the original sources, which is why the Church has, for the most part, embraced Bushman’s book.