Your thoughts on "Rough Stone Rolling"

[_Roger]

Simon wrote:

Why would anyone think that anyone's one-sided version of history tells the entire truth. Not everything you learned in elementary or secondary school in those textbooks was 100% accurate, Joseph. History is extremely complex with a great deal of human inconsistency. You should have realized that.

History is complex, true enough, but RSR is an example of Mormon history as told by a believing Mormon. For you to call that "one-sided" is interesting to say the least.

After reading RSR (which I just finished by the way) how would you suggest I go about balancing Bushman's "one-sided version" of Joseph Smith's history, Simon? I've already read Brodie, does that count for anything?

[_badseed]

What RSR does is bring a human dimension to Joseph Smith and his life. He had a short life and within that short life much was accomplished under duress most of the time. With all the pressures put on Joseph Smith during his sojourn as prophet it is quite amazing that so much was accomplished. Most people would have burned out if they had his life and his problems with the mobs. I think that this was one issue with Bushman as he wrote the book.

Now if all was peaceful in the lds camp with the mobs etc, the lds history would have been much different and it would make for an interesting read. But one could only guess at the life of Joseph Smith if there was no duress or persecution and history of the lds church.

No doubt Joseph Smith accomplished a lot in his short life— he was a force to be reckoned with for sure. I agree that RSR shows the human side of Joseph more than any other 'faithful' bio. Most others are so concerned with maintaining the myth that has been created over the years that they in some ways miss who Smith was.

What would Smith have accomplished if the mobs left him alone? Who knows? As you suggest he may have done even greater things. He also may have also— being unchecked— driven his own car off a cliff (as it were) and faded into history as a fallen prophet.

Certainly a portion of the resistance against the Church was a related to what Joseph and the Church did and Joseph would hardly have been Joseph had he not pissed other people off. He was a love or hate him type of guy for the most part and even he said of himself, "Deep water is what I am wont to swim in." So not only can we not know what would have been, I think it would likely have been a much less interesting read than what actually happened.

[_aussieguy55]

I think the diary of William Clayton reveals a lot about Smith and his libertine ways. Clayton was talking to Smith about taking a second wife and having problems with his wife. Smith's response was "you have a right to all you can get". Another entry was where Clayton wanted to marry another sister from a family. Smith's response was that he received a revelation that you could not , i think marry more than two sisters from a family and could he (clayton) talk to the said sister for him. Where did these guys get the time and energy? Why marry so many that were quite young? Some he married stayed with their legal husbands.

[_cinepro]

and/or Richard Bushman? I listened to his podcast interview today on mormonstories.org and was impressed by him. I have not read his book--if I do will all of my Joseph Smith issues be solved?

I really liked the book. Personally, I was thankful he didn't dwell on polygamy, the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland bank failure, and the treasure hunting, since I've been reading about those issues (and discussing them online) for years. Those topics are mentioned, but the book isn't about them. There are numerous other books and articles that go into more depth on those subjects.

What I really liked was learning about all the "gaps" in Joseph Smith's history. At Church, we learn about events, so our knowledge of Joseph Smith is usually arranged like dots on a timeline: Book of Mormon translation/priesthood restorations, Church organization, Zion's Camp, Kirtland Temple dedication, Liberty Jail, Nauvoo, Martyrdom.

I thought Bushman did a great job filling in the gaps and telling us what Joseph Smith was doing in his day-to-day life. The book paints a really good picture of what life was like at that time, and what Joseph's life was like.

It was also my impression that while the "negative" stuff seems to fly by pretty fast without any undue focus or attention, the positive stuff does as well. It's not like the First Vision gets 10 pages of adoration. It's merely presented as an event in his life, and then the story moves on.

There are also a ton of references to early anti-Mormon sources for Joseph's early life, such as "Mormonism Unvailed". That surprised me.

So definitely check it out. It's not going to "solve" any of your issues with Joseph Smith, but you might learn a lot about his life and the culture of the early days of the Church.

[_Jason Bourne]

Thanks all. I wondered if I should try to tackle it just to say I've read something from a TBM's point of view. I've read Palmer and Compton among others. But I've been raised in the church so don't I pretty much know all there is to know from that side??

I would recommend your read it. I did not find it boring at all but agree with Aristotle's comments on things he glossed over. I also had trouble with the idea that the treasure seeking seer stone experiences prepared him and his family to be and accept him as a prophet.

[_Jason Bourne]

If I had to guess, I would say the brethren commissioned the book, and most likely gave Bushman a blessing as he began the work. (wink)

~td~

Your guess would be wrong. And I have that first hand from the LDS Church historian.

[_Fence Sitter]

. I also had trouble with the idea that the treasure seeking seer stone experiences prepared him and his family to be and accept him as a prophet.

I am reading it right now and enjoying it. I just finished the part mentioned above. Would you mind explaining a bit more why this troubled you? Of if anyone else would like to comment on that portion please do.

Thanks

[_harmony]

. I also had trouble with the idea that the treasure seeking seer stone experiences prepared him and his family to be and accept him as a prophet.

I am reading it right now and enjoying it. I just finished the part mentioned above. Would you mind explaining a bit more why this troubled you? Of if anyone else would like to comment on that portion please do.

Thanks

A lot of people have a problem with con artists. Treasure seeking with a seer stone is a con, a means of cheating foolish people out of their money. Honorable men aren't con artists.

[_Joseph]

smion wrote: "No... don't go to hate sites."

and don't read any newspapers other than the Deseret News either. Wear blinders when you walk around, earmuffs to keep from hearing other ideas or opinions and move to Sandy, Utah where you will be surrounded by morgbots on anti-depressants who will never question anything.

[_Fence Sitter]

A lot of people have a problem with con artists. Treasure seeking with a seer stone is a con, a means of cheating foolish people out of their money. Honorable men aren't con artists.

I understand the con man issue. The way I read Bushman's connection between the treasure seeker and the prophet, I don't think the con man comes into play. If you are a believer then you can view Joseph Smith's treasure seeking as reluctant and perhaps a bit misguided. If you see him as a fraud then he was a fraud as both a treasure seeker and a prophet. In both cases I think Bushman's correlation between the two would apply. As a prophet or a fraud those experiences as a treasure seeker had to be helpful.