Joseph Smith "A Rough Rolling Stone" Biography.

[_Ray A]

Bushman's first Joseph Smith bio was a step in the right direction, his second, RSR, is another step but there is a long way to go to be fully honest and open about the life of Joseph Smith, in my opinion.

He wrote RSR to inoculate members.. you know, give them a little tiny bit of the bad stuff, right along with the apologetic response and hope members will be satisfied believing really smart writers and LDS leaders know the truth and still have a testimony.

As I have stated before, if I were the LDS PR CEO, I would have commissioned Bushman to write the book exactly as it has been written!

~td~

Thanks for that tip, TD. I'll wait for the uncensored version.

"Please hold the line, we will be with you sometime in the next thousand years...."

[_aussieguy55]

There is an interesting review of RSR in Books and Culture
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/200 ... /7.11.html

I have been reading the early part of the book since it deals with issues that initially started me on the way to doubt. The revival question in the First Vision account and the 1826 trial. I had some letter exchange with Walters over the revival question and was writing to him when he discovered the documents relating to the 1826 trial. I am a footnote follower so I noted with interest that Bushman does not cite his exchange with Wes Walters in Dialogue, Spring 1969. See page 570 footnote 27 " For the arguments that revivals in 1824 were the background for Jospeh's first vision, see Marquardt and Walters, Inventing Mormonism, 15-41. The rebuttal is in Backman First Vision. " The rebuttal? Backman does not even mention Walter's paper in his book. So much for scholarship.

[_Jersey Girl]

I purchased RSR when I hosted the Book Forum on ZLMB. I've read it twice cover to cover. Totally loved it.

"A Rough Rolling Stone"? What's that? Jagger's bio?

[_Dr. Shades]

Isn't it true that in nearly 100% of the cases, Bushman chooses pretty much every explanation except the most likely one?

[_Jason Bourne]

Bushman's first Joseph Smith bio was a step in the right direction, his second, RSR, is another step but there is a long way to go to be fully honest and open about the life of Joseph Smith, in my opinion.

What things do you think he should have included that he did not. What could he have done to have been more honest?

He wrote RSR to inoculate members.. you know, give them a little tiny bit of the bad stuff, right along with the apologetic response and hope members will be satisfied believing really smart writers and LDS leaders know the truth and still have a testimony.

So because he wrote it from the view point of a believer and still has a testimony the book falls short for you. Hmmmmm.

As I have stated before, if I were the LDS PR CEO, I would have commissioned Bushman to write the book exactly as it has been written!

The book was good book, a fair book. Bushman even stated up front that he was a believer and that no one is unbiased, not even you TD. In much of the book had gave no apologetic spin at all, in my opinion, but rather presented the facts and let readers decide. In other areas he did give an apologetic response. The one area I found rather strained was baout the money digging and magic issues preparing him to be a prophet.

[_Jason Bourne]

Isn't it true that in nearly 100% of the cases, Bushman chooses pretty much every explanation except the most likely one?

No

Apparently you have not read the book.

Simply amazing.

[_Jason Bourne]

Thanks for that tip, TD. I'll wait for the uncensored version.

You should get the book and read it Ray. TD's tip was a lousy one.

[_Jason Bourne]

There is an interesting review of RSR in Books and Culture
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/200 ... /7.11.html

I have been reading the early part of the book since it deals with issues that initially started me on the way to doubt. The revival question in the First Vision account and the 1826 trial. I had some letter exchange with Walters over the revival question and was writing to him when he discovered the documents relating to the 1826 trial. I am a footnote follower so I noted with interest that Bushman does not cite his exchange with Wes Walters in Dialogue, Spring 1969. See page 570 footnote 27 " For the arguments that revivals in 1824 were the background for Jospeh's first vision, see Marquardt and Walters, Inventing Mormonism, 15-41. The rebuttal is in Backman First Vision. " The rebuttal? Backman does not even mention Walter's paper in his book. So much for scholarship.

This particular item is a weak spot. It does not however reflect on the whole book. Nobody is perfect.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jason,

TD:

He wrote RSR to inoculate members.. you know, give them a little tiny bit of the bad stuff, right along with the apologetic response and hope members will be satisfied believing really smart writers and LDS leaders know the truth and still have a testimony.

Jason:

So because he wrote it from the view point of a believer and still has a testimony the book falls short for you. Hmmmmm.

No, it is exactly what Bushman and the LDS leaders wanted. I think it was a step toward more open disclosure but I'm pretty sure even Bushman would admit it was an apologetic work.

The book was good book, a fair book. Bushman even stated up front that he was a believer and that no one is unbiased, not even you TD. In much of the book had gave no apologetic spin at all, in my opinion, but rather presented the facts and let readers decide. In other areas he did give an apologetic response. The one area I found rather strained was baout the money digging and magic issues preparing him to be a prophet.

Exactly my point. Bushman is open that the book is an apologetic work which it very much is. Of course we are all biased. (And yeah, that part about money digging is a good example of what I am taking about).

I'm just making the point that if someone wants to learn about Joseph Smith, Bushman's bio, while a step in the right direction is still very much written to convince members the LDS church is the one and only true church upon the earth, and that Joseph Smith was a great and noble man who was called by God to restore the true church upon the earth.

I'm pretty sure Bushman would be agree with me.

~td~

[_TAK]

Bushman did not disclose anything new. He just put a spin on Jos. Smith's foibles that were already know to the critics.