DiscussMormonism.com

Fifty pages into Dan Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith, I am initially convinced that Dan's work is much, much superior to Dr/Professor Bushman's.
In writing style, tone, readability, conprehensiveness of sources, Bushman relied heavily on his "early Mormonism" writings and used a significant assistant/ helper, Jed Woodworth, put together a faithful "cultural biography of Smith. It seemed as though Bushman agonized at every turn to be faithful or at least neutral on the issues of Smith family dynamics (eg Joe Sr's drinking) moneydigging,first vision differences, translation ability/capability, polygamy, etc.

Vogel has no such requirement to be "faithful" and his sources seem to be solid in their diversity and in their contemporaneousness? Given that I still must hold judgment on Dan's work until I see how he deals with the pious fraud theory, I wonder why Dan's book did not get the traction of Bushman's-btw is his book available in DB?

If you were a TBM and read Vogel's first 50 pages you would probably be doubting your beliefs at this point, while you can read all of Bushman and come away with-"yep Joseph Smith is truly a prophet of God, though fallible."

So Vogel versus Bushman-how do you make the call?

just sayin
k

I would read them both and decide which is the more truthful. History is not a hard science. It's an art. With regards to Joseph Smith you can go overboard either way. Just look at Price's book "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" as an example. And of course you can interpret the same "facts" differently. For myself, I have little time to invest in reading about Joseph Smith any longer. You can't white wash the obvious.

BartBurk wrote:I would read them both and decide which is the more truthful. History is not a hard science. It's an art. With regards to Joseph Smith you can go overboard either way. Just look at Price's book "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" as an example. And of course you can interpret the same "facts" differently. For myself, I have little time to invest in reading about Joseph Smith any longer. You can't white wash the obvious.

i can't see the poll. can i vote for bartman.

I don't think it's fair to compare the two. It's been 10 years since I read Vogel's book, and 9 since Bushman's, but if I recall Vogel's is more of a "how Joseph Smith might have done it" book with a lot of theorizing and "maybes", and it ends ~1830. I enjoyed it, but it was hardly a conventional biography.

cinepro wrote:I don't think it's fair to compare the two. It's been 10 years since I read Vogel's book, and 9 since Bushman's, but if I recall Vogel's is more of a "how Joseph Smith might have done it" book with a lot of theorizing and "maybes", and it ends ~1830. I enjoyed it, but it was hardly a conventional biography.

I agree. There's no doubt that Bushman's book glosses over some of the more "embarrassing" aspects of Smith's life, and is consciously trying to "keep the faith". But Vogel's book struck me as more or less a "hypothetical biography" and I couldn't help but wonder to myself, as I was reading it: "The FARMS folks are going to have a hay day with this." In my opinion, had the Vogel book been about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or some other less controversial historical character, it would have been ripped to pieces by historians and literary critics alike. I think the Vogel book was consciously written for ex-Mormons/doubting Mormons, and it counts on the prejudices of it's target audience.

BartBurk wrote:History is not a hard science. It's an art. With regards to Joseph Smith you can go overboard either way. Just look at Price's book "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" as an example. And of course you can interpret the same "facts" differently. For myself, I have little time to invest in reading about Joseph Smith any longer. You can't white wash the obvious.

No, "you" can't, but mopologists certainly try too.

Ludd wrote:

cinepro wrote:I don't think it's fair to compare the two. It's been 10 years since I read Vogel's book, and 9 since Bushman's, but if I recall Vogel's is more of a "how Joseph Smith might have done it" book with a lot of theorizing and "maybes", and it ends ~1830. I enjoyed it, but it was hardly a conventional biography.

I agree. There's no doubt that Bushman's book glosses over some of the more "embarrassing" aspects of Smith's life, and is consciously trying to "keep the faith". But Vogel's book struck me as more or less a "hypothetical biography" and I couldn't help but wonder to myself, as I was reading it: "The FARMS folks are going to have a hay day with this." In my opinion, had the Vogel book been about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or some other less controversial historical character, it would have been ripped to pieces by historians and literary critics alike. I think the Vogel book was consciously written for ex-Mormons/doubting Mormons, and it counts on the prejudices of it's target audience.

It was written from the assumption that the Book of Mormon is not real history. I wasn't trying to prove Joseph Smith wrote it, but attempting to penetrate the facade of deception and uncover his motives, beliefs, dilemmas, etc. Conventional historians don't like to mix psychology or sociology or other disciplines. They prefer to write from a neutral position and not make conclusions about truth claims and simply repeat Joseph Smith's narrative. I decided not to play it safe and bore everyone, but to challenge and shakeup the mainstream. So it is an interpretive biography and hence as controversial as Joseph Smith was.

Dan Vogel wrote:It was written from the assumption that the Book of Mormon is not real history. I wasn't trying to prove Joseph Smith wrote it, but attempting to penetrate the façade of deception and uncover his motives, beliefs, dilemmas, etc. Conventional historians don't like to mix psychology or sociology or other disciplines. They prefer to write from a neutral position and not make conclusions about truth claims and simply repeat Joseph Smith's narrative. I decided not to play it safe and bore everyone, but to challenge and shakeup the mainstream. So it is an interpretive biography and hence as controversial as Joseph Smith was.

That doesn't sound like a terribly interesting approach. So if we want to read anything Vogel has to write, it is best summarized as "Joseph Smith made it all up. The End." So what exactly is the difference between you and Eber D. Howe again? As far as I can see, you are just a modern version of him.

Tobin wrote:

Dan Vogel wrote:It was written from the assumption that the Book of Mormon is not real history. I wasn't trying to prove Joseph Smith wrote it, but attempting to penetrate the façade of deception and uncover his motives, beliefs, dilemmas, etc. Conventional historians don't like to mix psychology or sociology or other disciplines. They prefer to write from a neutral position and not make conclusions about truth claims and simply repeat Joseph Smith's narrative. I decided not to play it safe and bore everyone, but to challenge and shakeup the mainstream. So it is an interpretive biography and hence as controversial as Joseph Smith was.

That doesn't sound like a terribly interesting approach. So if we want to read anything Vogel has to write, it is best summarized as "Joseph Smith made it all up. The End." So what exactly is the difference between you and Eber D. Howe again? As far as I can see, you are just a modern version of him.

Not surprisingly, Tobin is unable to see that this is a compliment.

Both Vogel and Howe are invaluable sources valued by historians.

I wonder if Tobin even is aware of Dan's forthcoming book about E.D. Howe? Mormonism Unveiled

I look forward to reading it Dan and find your Early Mormon Documents series an invaluable resource also.

Any plans to add further volumes, Dan?