Dan Vogel on Bushman?????s Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling

[_Tobin]

As to the subject of the panel, Vogel made what I thought were excellent points. In particular, I immediately disagreed with Bushman's way of reading Joseph Smith's experience as a treasure seer, largely because I find it almost impossible to untangle the treasure seer from the prophet. I think that, truth be told, the two are the same. What one sees is a slow evolution in focus. But what do we make of Brigham Young identifying the location of sites anciently dedicated for Nephite temples? I think this is a continuation of the tradition of treasure seership in Mormonism. The focus has shifted (away from acquiring money from the earth), but they are fundamentally the same.

I don't agree with Vogel. I think you can believe in Joseph Smith's claims and still view him suspiciously and even as being a nincompoop or treasure seeker. Joseph Smith is riddled with inconsistencies. Many people have flaws and that is why anyone (believer or no) should take a skeptical view of what he's saying. It actually makes him somewhat endearing except when he's being not so endearing. And valuing Joseph Smith's insights isn't something that is necessarily tied to whether or not you believe he was telling the truth, but whether what he says makes sense and is reasonable and consistent with other sources (including inspiration from God). Which is really the point to Joseph Smith's experiences and insights after all.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't agree with Vogel. I think you can believe in Joseph Smith's claims and still view him suspiciously and even as being a nincompoop or treasure seeker. Joseph Smith is riddled with inconsistencies. Many people have flaws and that is why anyone (believer or no) should take a skeptical view of what he's saying. It actually makes him somewhat endearing except when he's being not so endearing. And valuing Joseph Smith's insights isn't something that is necessarily tied to whether or not you believe he was telling the truth, but whether what he says makes sense and is reasonable and consistent with other sources (including inspiration from God). Which is really the point to Joseph Smith's experiences and insights after all.

What you say here sounds more in agreement with Vogel than not. What Vogel was saying is that Bushman's eirenic approach actually robs the student of Joseph Smith of the complexity of which you write above. In other words, in trying to make a Joseph Smith that is yet appealing to the modern assumptions about the role of prophet in the LDS Church, the historian misses what the word prophet meant to Joseph Smith. I would tend to agree with that.

[_Tobin]

I don't agree with Vogel. I think you can believe in Joseph Smith's claims and still view him suspiciously and even as being a nincompoop or treasure seeker. Joseph Smith is riddled with inconsistencies. Many people have flaws and that is why anyone (believer or no) should take a skeptical view of what he's saying. It actually makes him somewhat endearing except when he's being not so endearing. And valuing Joseph Smith's insights isn't something that is necessarily tied to whether or not you believe he was telling the truth, but whether what he says makes sense and is reasonable and consistent with other sources (including inspiration from God). Which is really the point to Joseph Smith's experiences and insights after all.

What you say here sounds more in agreement with Vogel than not. What Vogel was saying is that Bushman's eirenic approach actually robs the student of Joseph Smith of the complexity of which you write above. In other words, in trying to make a Joseph Smith that is yet appealing to the modern assumptions about the role of prophet in the LDS Church, the historian misses what the word prophet meant to Joseph Smith. I would tend to agree with that.

But Vogel seems to me to express the view that by believing Joseph Smith's claims that means you turn a blind eye to the less flattering aspects of his character and makes you less critical of his claims. I disagree with that. I think you can do both and are no less objective.

[_Kishkumen]

But Vogel seems to me to express the view that by believing Joseph Smith's claims that means you turn a blind eye to the less flattering aspects of his character and makes you less critical of his claims. I disagree with that. I think you can do both and are no less objective.

The fundamental difference between you and Vogel is that he looks at the same complexity that you do and he sees a pious fraud. Both of you believe in looking at the whole picture.

[Guest]

As to the subject of the panel, Vogel made what I thought were excellent points. In particular, I immediately disagreed with Bushman's way of reading Joseph Smith's experience as a treasure seer, largely because I find it almost impossible to untangle the treasure seer from the prophet. I think that, truth be told, the two are the same. What one sees is a slow evolution in focus. But what do we make of Brigham Young identifying the location of sites anciently dedicated for Nephite temples? I think this is a continuation of the tradition of treasure seership in Mormonism. The focus has shifted (away from acquiring money from the earth), but they are fundamentally the same.

I think this point is crucial. For Bushman, Joseph's treasure-seeking (about which Bushman detects--and displays--some ambivalence) is a kind of apprenticeship to be left behind. But the treasure-seeking is post-conversion (if we credit the First Vision in some form or other), and seamlessly leads to angelic apparitions, gold plates, translation-by-scrying, and all that followed. The model of prophecy he establishes in the Book of Mormon and follows thereafter (Givens's "dialogic revelation") seems to have a lot more in common with Dee and Kelley than with Jeremiah and Isaiah. I think a strong case can be made for the consistency of Joseph's vision amidst all its twists and changes.

One thing I'd like to have more clarity on, though, is the development of the understanding of "endowment" from Kirtland to Nauvoo and its relation to plural marriage. Does that doctrine shape the later endowment in a way that doctrine would not otherwise have taken, or is plurality of wives and gods somehow implicit from the beginning? How much here is esoteric Christianity and how much is merely building a web of secrecy and complicity around Joseph's behavior?

hc

[_Kishkumen]

One thing I'd like to have more clarity on, though, is the development of the understanding of "endowment" from Kirtland to Nauvoo and its relation to plural marriage. Does that doctrine shape the later endowment in a way by that doctrine in a direction it would not otherwise have taken, or is plurality of wives and gods somehow implicit from the beginning? How much here is esoteric Christianity and how much is merely building a web of secrecy and complicity around Joseph's behavior?

hc

Those are great questions, hans.

My immediate response, without taking time to research it in depth, would be to say that the esotericism is at the root of it all, but that the plurality of gods is probably not. I think the first hint of the possibility of plurality probably comes in the development of Michael as a more robust figure in LDS theology. Just guessing there. But the earliest account of the FV focuses on a single figure, Jesus, while at points the Book of Mormon seems modalist in its theology.

The esotericism is what allowed the development of other doctrines, like the plurality of gods, to evolve and really get fixed in the tradition, but I see little evidence of it at the beginning. No more so than in other theological variations on the Godhead in Christianity, at least.

[_Kishkumen]

On the question of the endowment and secrecy: in my view the treasure circles Joseph and his family were involved in probably involved Freemasonry, ritual magic, and a certain amount of conspiracy. I would be surprised if the endowment had not functioned to create a secretive in-group that protected itself from outside scrutiny. I think one can see the Gadianton band in the Book of Mormon as a kind of mirror image of a good, secret ritual group.

[Guest]

Thanks Dan, I thought you made some solid critiques. I agree that one of the biggest problems with Bushman's book is that he becomes the least objective and the most apologetic when he comes to the issues which would cause the most problems for a Mormon testimony.

I very much agree. I said this before in my earlier thread, but 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, (ii) would not get his TR taken away and (iii) would not ignore difficult issues. The result was a fairly bland book. Brodie's book has its faults, but it is still the better biography of Joseph Smith in my opinion.

I have tremendous respect for Bushman as a historian and as a person. However, as this thread quite aptly demonstrates, RSR could have been so much more . . .

[_lulu]

What one sees is a slow evolution in focus.

Well said, that deserves to be quoted.

[_Kishkumen]

What one sees is a slow evolution in focus.

Well said, that deserves to be quoted.

Thanks, lulu!