This afternoon, I got to meet historian Richard Bushman, author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, at a symposium on Mormonism in Cultural Contexts held at the Springville Museum of Art. (Technically I might have met him before. When I was five, we attended the same church in Cambridge, Mass.)Bushman's 2005 biography of Joseph Smith was groundbreaking, particularly because of the risks he took.
With a PhD from Harvard and as a faculty member at Columbia University, he took a significant risk within his academic community by presenting Smith's spiritual claims at face value, not working on the assumption that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Bushman was up front in the preface about his own beliefs, and then he maintained objectivity throughout the book by not positing Smith's claims were true or untrue, just that they were.
He also took a significant risk within his Mormon community by presenting Smith as a fallible human being in the context of his time and place, including his family's openness to spiritual practices that were not particularly uncommon then, but would certainly raise eyebrows today, such as folk magic. An academically rigorous biography will necessarily find itself at odds with traditional, faith-promoting stories of a prophet, and this biography was no exception.
In my opinion, Bushman's risks paid off. I'm glad I had a chance to thank him in person for taking them.
5 comments:
It's sound like a great read. I'll have to check it out.
And the author sounds incredible. I love people who are able to remain true to themselves and a project while challenging long held practices. If they can't stand up to the challenge, maybe they need to be rethought.
Thanks for the tip on reading material.
Cindy is reading the book. I also have "On the Road With Joseph: An Author's Diary."
would be interested to hear Cindy's opinion, we found some real doctrinal problems from an author who claims to know the gospel that hurt his credibility on the rest, Durk gave up on it. I didn't try it myself after that but maybe I should.I'm not sure its really that helpful to "prove" that Joseph Smith had lots of flaws.
Jim, I enjoyed reading Bushman's author diary as well.
Joan, I read the book quite a while ago, but don't remember any particular doctrinal problems. Now I'm curious.
I do think it's important to consider that doctrine (and particularly the way it's framed) not only unfolded over the course of Joseph Smith's life, it has continued to evolve since his death. Also, I have read a lot of "doctrinal" statements by various church leaders that fundamentally contradict one another or are downright mistaken (McConkie, anyone?). I'm not sure points of doctrine are always specific and clear and fully agreed upon.
Or maybe I don't know the gospel. That's entirely possible.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the value of seeing Joseph Smith as a man who was not perfect. Personally, I think focusing exclusively on the positive can breed much distrust, especially when truth emerges. Plus, I don't think this biography particularly dwells on the negative. I would not say he "proves" Joseph has "lots" of flaws at all. I would say he presents him as human.
PS: The book is sold at Deseret Book, which speaks volumes in my opinion. Not that Rough Stone Rolling is a definitive biography in any way. It is one historian's opinion of the historical records.
Post a Comment