Schryver on Bushman's RSR

[_Cicero]

Just saw an interesting post from Will on MD&D:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58284-vogel-responds-to-starr/page__st__40

Here is the interesting part:

I disagree profoundly with your assessment of Bushman and particularly his magnum opus, Rough Stone Rolling. (I think his earlier work, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism is much better.)

Of course, I am not alone, as you probably know. Although I will not "name names," I could rattle off at least a half dozen very prominent LDS scholars/apologists who concur with my assessment of Bushman and his book. This is not meant as an appeal to authority (otherwise I would have named names), but rather merely to underscore the fact that there is a profound disagreement about these things among those whose knowledge of Mormon history is such that it renders them well-qualified to judge.

At any rate, there is a very good reason that Bushman is so popular among critics of Mormonism: he concurs more with them than he does with defenders of Mormonism. Does this necessarily imply that Bushman is wrong in his interpretations of the historical data? Well, yes, it does, as a matter of fact.

But seriously, there has been a pronounced reluctance among LDS apologists to strongly criticize Bushman and Rough Stone Rolling on account of a certain sense of "loyalty to the team." In my opinion, this has been very ill-advised and short-sighted. I hope that the recent shake-up at the NAMI will serve as a wake-up call to those who have been "biting their tongues" in the years since Rough Stone Rolling was published, and that it will finally receive the muscular critique it deserves

Wow, that would be interesting.

[_Kishkumen]

Of course, I am not alone, as you probably know. Although I will not "name names," I could rattle off at least a half dozen very prominent LDS scholars/apologists who concur with my assessment of Bushman and his book. This is not meant as an appeal to authority (otherwise I would have named names), but rather merely to underscore the fact that there is a profound disagreement about these things among those whose knowledge of Mormon history is such that it renders them well-qualified to judge.

An appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority even if you don't name names. All you have to do is insist that persons better, in some sense, than you hold this view.

"Hey watch me make an appeal to authority as I claim I am not doing so. Are ya fooled?"

[_CaliforniaKid]

At any rate, there is a very good reason that Bushman is so popular among critics of Mormonism: he concurs more with them than he does with defenders of Mormonism. Does this necessarily imply that Bushman is wrong in his interpretations of the historical data? Well, yes, it does, as a matter of fact.

LOL. Truth is defined by group loyalty, is it? Well, at least William is honest about his epistemology.

[_harmony]

Notice he's not willing to go on record about exactly where Bushman goes off the rails.

Will's not big on documentation. I do hope and wish and pray every day (well, maybe not every day) that his own opus gets published before I die of old age in 20-30 years.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Makes me wonder which "critics of Mormonism" he's been talking to. RSR is probably the closest thing to a "warts and all" biography of Joseph Smith that you'll get from a believing Mormon, but it never takes things to their logical conclusion. When Smith barters salvation for teenage girls, Bushman calls it an old-fashioned asking of a father for his daughter's hand. When Smith uses the peepstone to translate the Book of Mormon, Bushman tells us that Smith had abandoned his earlier superstitions. in my opinion, Bushman does this so he can introduce difficult issues to a Mormon audience without causing too much cognitive dissonance.

I don't know many critics who love Bushman's book. Most of my anti-Mormon friends agree with me: it's not great, but it's the best you can hope for from a believer.

Did anyone else LOL when they read "muscular critique" from Mr. Schryver?

[_just me]

Did anyone else LOL when they read "muscular critique" from Mr. Schryver?

I'm not sure if it was a LOL...more of a snort.

[_Cicero]

Makes me wonder which "critics of Mormonism" he's been talking to. RSR is probably the closest thing to a "warts and all" biography of Joseph Smith that you'll get from a believing Mormon, but it never takes things to their logical conclusion. When Smith barters salvation for teenage girls, Bushman calls it an old-fashioned asking of a father for his daughter's hand. When Smith uses the peepstone to translate the Book of Mormon, Bushman tells us that Smith had abandoned his earlier superstitions. in my opinion, Bushman does this so he can introduce difficult issues to a Mormon audience without causing too much cognitive dissonance.

I don't know many critics who love Bushman's book. Most of my anti-Mormon friends agree with me: it's not great, but it's the best you can hope for from a believer.

Did anyone else LOL when they read "muscular critique" from Mr. Schryver?

I didn't have time to post my own thoughts when I put up the quote, but I essentially agree with you. Overall, I was disappointed by Bushman's book. Part of my disapointment stemmed from how much the anticipation for RSR had built up for many years. Bushman was hiring BYU students as summer research assistants in the mid-90's to do research for RSR. He took a LONG time writing it and it was ultimately supposed to finally be the biography of Smith that knocked Fawn Brodie's book off its long-time perch as the definitive biography of Smith in the academic world.

I remember eagerly picking it up the first day and diving in . . . and then having to really push myself to finish it over the next several weeks. I love reading history but I clearly remember falling asleep many times while reading RSR and I don't recall learning any new insights or information from reading it.

In my view, the ultimate problem is that Bushman attempted to walk a very fine line. He wanted to write something that: (i) would be acceptable and accessible to non-Mormon professional historians (which is why it reads more like a monagraph targeted at academics rather than something written for a popular audience), (ii) would not get his TR taken away (I don't know this of course but I do believe that Bushman is a true believer) and (iii) would not ignore difficult issues. I think that the result was a fairly bland book that didn't really satisfy anyone. Brodie's book has its faults, but it is still the better book in my opinion. I decided after reading RSR that anyone concerned about their temple recommend status would not be able to write a really good biography of Joseph Smith.

[_lulu]

Bushman's 2nd bio is an answer to Quinn and Brooke. It's an attempt to vaccinate believers against the magic world view.

If Will has something to say, he should list the specific reasons he finds bio 1 better than bio 2 instead of his "non-appeal to authority" appeal to authority.

[_Bob Loblaw]

How brainless do these people have to be? The one guy who is trying to soften the blow of who Joseph Smith really was and to help people maintain faith is getting attacked by his own side. I sort of hope they do just because it's such a phenomenally stupid move but I hear Bushman is a good man and noone deserves that kind of crap.

Are you guys sure this Schryver character is a real person? If he's not some ex-Mormon's sockpuppet he's the single stupidest apologist there is.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Although I will not "name names," I could rattle off at least a half dozen very prominent LDS scholars/apologists who concur with my assessment of Bushman and his book.

Classic Will. Always assuring us that some unnamed, important somebodies somewhere agree with something he says or thinks.

He's gotta be one of the most insecure characters in all of online Mormonism. It's almost kinda cute.