Can you suggest some books for me?

[Maxel]

I don't see anything wrong with your quotation of Bushman (regarding folkloric magic preparing the family for the acceptance of the Angel Moroni), Barter_Town.

I'm not versed at all in 19th-century spiritualism, but I'd hazard that an acceptance of 'magic'- an acceptance of, and belief in, the power of a higher force acting in nature to bring events and results contrary to the normal process of things- could very easily lead to an acceptance of the Gospel, where we believe that the 'higher force' is God's power. It brings the esoteric nature of the Biblical miracles 'down to reality', so to speak- miracles and miraculous events are no longer 'dead and gone' but still very much alive. An acceptance of magic doesn't necessarily lead to acceptance of God's miracles and miraculous events- but for some people, it very well could. Joseph's family could have been those kind of people.

I don't see how that's some sort of crazy, outrageous spin.

[allredcon]

Read everything you can by Truman G. Madsen.

[Barter_Town]

So, because she "felt guilty as hell" it makes her actions acceptable? Give me a break.

I don't think there is any excuse for that, as she readily admitted, but you have to wonder why they'd allow her access to the archives simply for being "Bro. McKay's daughter" (in reality, his niece) with no credentials whatsoever.

And obviously it wouldn't be such a big deal if the information she accessed wasn't so controversial for Mormons.

And, I love how you dismiss both historians credentials as "Quite irrelevant."

So, because one author has his PhD and the other doesn't, his book trumps hers?

Shouldn't you be comparing the books themselves?

In other words, you don't want to compare because in comparison to Bushman, Broadie looks a lot like Michael Moore.

Bushman is the spinmeister here, if anyone. By accepting Joseph Smith's claim of prophethood, everything that follows is viewed through that lens. And hey, that's great. If all your church-history reading is relegated to the faith-promoting variety, Bushman's book is perfect for you.

Brodie's book, on the other hand, doesn't begin with this assumption. So, if you want a more objective approach, read Brodie's book. If you want a faith-promoting spin-job, stick with Bushman.

[Barter_Town]

Gee Bartertown, because someone disagree's with your opinion. it means they couldn't have possibly read any of her books? Give me a break!

When someone claims that Brodie's book says things that it doesn't, it is obvious they haven't really read the book. This isn't a matter of differing opinions.

[mnn727]

When someone claims that Brodie's book says things that it doesn't, it is obvious they haven't really read the book. This isn't a matter of differing opinions.

Perhaps you should try reading what I actually wrote and stop trying to put words in my mouth and above all stop trying to tell people what they have done and not done.

Brodie is a lousy writer/researcher in my opinion that decides what she wants the data to say before she does the research, its what a lot of people think about her, and not only about her book about JS -- deal with it.

[Barter_Town]

Perhaps you should try reading what I actually wrote and stop trying to put words in my mouth and above all stop trying to tell people what they have done and not done.

I was referring to bytebear, who claimed that Brodie's book implies that Joseph Smith was "insane", and that he "must've had some sort of psychedelic experience to warrant such an unshakeable testimony". Anyone who has read the book would know that this is simply not true. Nowhere in her book does she make such ridiculous assumptions. That is why it is painfully obvious that he has not read the book and has no idea what he is talking about.

Brodie is a lousy writer/researcher in my opinion that decides what she wants the data to say before she does the research, its what a lot of people think about her, and not only about her book about JS -- deal with it.

She has her share of critics, sure. But show me a biographer who doesn't. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, unsupported as it may be.

But if her work was really as lousy as you seem to think it is, I doubt she would have enjoyed the amount of critical and commercial success that she did. I doubt Time and Newsweek would have hailed her Joseph Smith biography as "the definitive biography in the finest sense of the word", or praised it for her "skill and authorship and admirable detachment", or that Jan Shipps (former president of the Mormon History Association) would have described it as a "beautifully written biography... the work of a mature scholar [that] represented the first genuine effort to come to grips with the contradictory evidence about Smith's early life", or that she would have become one of the first tenured female professors at UCLA (upper division classes in American history).

Personally, I found the book to be entirely fair, professional, accurate and objective. It is simply a secular approach to Joseph Smith, nothing more, and certainly not the "anti-Mormon" screed that certain church members who haven't even read it seem to think of it as.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Barter_Town

[bytebear]

But if her work was really as lousy as you seem to think it is, I doubt she would have enjoyed the amount of critical and commercial success that she did. I doubt Time and Newsweek would have hailed her Joseph Smith biography as "the definitive biography in the finest sense of the word", or praised it for her "skill and authorship and admirable detachment", or that Jan Shipps (former president of the Mormon History Association) would have described it as a "beautifully written biography... the work of a mature scholar [that] represented the first genuine effort to come to grips with the contradictory evidence about Smith's early life", or that she would have become one of the first tenured female professors at UCLA (upper division classes in American history).

You obviously got your words from this article:

Jan Shipps | Richard Lyman Bushman, the Story of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and the New Mormon History | The Journal of American History, 94.2 | The History Cooperative

But you fail to mention the thesis of the article. Here's the first line:

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Lyman Bushman's biography of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, is the crowning achievement of the new Mormon history

Edited September 22, 2009 by bytebear

[Barter_Town]

You obviously got your words from this article:

Jan Shipps | Richard Lyman Bushman, the Story of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and the New Mormon History | The Journal of American History, 94.2 | The History Cooperative

Actually, I got them from the same Fawn Brodie Wikipedia article I had cited earlier.

But you fail to mention the thesis of the article. Here's the first line:

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Lyman Bushman's biography of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, is the crowning achievement of the new Mormon history

The Brodie Wikipedia article pertains to her work, not Bushman's book. Therefore I didn't "fail to mention" anything. But thanks for trying.

Also if you'll review my posts, I never said Bushman's book was without merit. It is a perfectly acceptable biography for believers, if that's your thing. Just take Brodie's secular approach, whitewash and spin the controversies through a believer's lens and, viola, you have Bushman's book. Which is probably better than nothing, for church members. Church members needed something, after all, and it's amazing that it took so long for someone to produce a biography from the LDS perspective.

True, the Fawn Brodie book didn't exactly reinforce LDS beliefs. But it doesn't disparage them, either. It simply presents the evidence and draws the most reasonable conclusions. The Bushman book, however, does reinforce everything that church members want to hear, and provides pat answers to (or glosses over) every single controversy, by the numbers. Which is a step forward for the church, at least.

If reinforcement of faith is what you need from a biography of Joseph Smith, then by all means, stick with the Bushman book. But don't misrepresent or slander the Brodie book simply because you take exception to her secular approach. Jan Shipps has no qualms recognizing its value, importance, objectivity and accuracy, so, why do you? Interesting that you'll apparently accept her opinion of Bushman's book, but not of Brodie's.