★★★★★ 4
Good material for seminary class or testimony meeting, questionable history and biography
Format: Hardcover
Bushman' preface tells us that this "biography" is a "believers" perspective on Joseph Smith's life and time. Thus, Bushman's book is valuable as insight into how devout, believing, practicing Mormons view Joseph's life.
To me, as a "gentile", the book seems like great material for a seminary class or a testimony meeting. The basic Mormon "testimony" statement goes something like "I have a testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God." I also imagine that this book might be good material for missionary training. But I have some problems with the historical scholarship. (See the end of my review.)
Regardless of my problems with Bushman's text, Joseph Smith is an interesting and complicated character. He has had a lasting impact, and fathered a religion that has members around the world. His life, as well as the religion and church he founded, is well worth studying. But then the same could be said of Ellen White, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, and many others.
Bushman does give us a valuable, well written (but at times tedious), insight into a believer's perspective on Joseph. But the value of this book as history and biography is problematic. When the historical evidence suggests conflicting interpretations, or negative interpretations, of Joseph, and exposes some of the "rough edges", Bushman never deviates from his testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. Consequently Bushman always seems to be able to smooth the edges of this "rough stone rolling". In doing so there are some misrepresentations and omissions which diminish the value of this book as a serious study of Joseph's life and times.
Bushman has solved the biography problem for believing Mormons who have waited over 60 years for an alternative, and antidote, to Fawn Brodie's "No one Knows my History". But I don't think he has transcended Brodie's work.
If you are not a believing Mormon, a better introduction to Joseph Smith would be Robert Remini's short biography (182 pages), "Joseph Smith". Then tackle Bushman's tome (561 pages of text).
Problems with Bushmans text:
1. Bushman, as Mormon historians and General Authorities have done for over 100 years, misrepresents and distorts the perspective of Josiah Quincy. A century ago B. H. Roberts claimed that Quincy was "on our side". In the prologue (pp. 1-7), Bushman represents Quincy as a benign "puzzled skeptic". In fact Quincy saw Joseph and his religious movement as an "evil fanaticism" and likens Joseph to Thomas Muntzer (Mulhausen) and Jan van Leydon (Munster). This is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of Quincy's essay, along with comments about "demoralizing doctrines", "still darker revelations", and the assertion that Joseph's religion is "subversive of every duty which we claim from the citizen". ( For the significance of the references to Mulhausen and Munster see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, pp. 234-280 and Anthony Arthur, The Tailor-King).
My concern is not with the merits of Quincy's essay. (You can read Quincy for yourself at [...]) Rather it is that Bushman's representation of Quincy as a benign "puzzled skeptic" is at best inaccurate. Quincy's puzzlement is of a very different nature than Bushman would have us believe. I think Quincy's statements might be closer to what Bushman call the "anti-Mormon argument" (p. 510). But Quincy's personal position on Joseph and his followers would be closer to Thomas Gregg's (p. 532).
There are three other misrepresentations of Quincy. Towards the end of the book, Bushman quotes Quincy as saying the Nauvoo temple architecture is "odd and striking"(p. 504). But Quincy also said the temple was "grotesque"! In short he was not favorably impressed. On page 522 Bushman says "Quincy was surprised to hear Joseph invite a Methodist to preach from a Mormon pulpit." In Quincy's text the Methodist minister was clearly surprised at the invitation. But Quincy does not reveal his reaction to this invitation. Given Quincy's descriptions of the banter between Joseph and the minister, I think it would be more appropriate to say Quincy was at best amused.
On page 560 Bushman says "Quincy saw in him `that kingly faculty that directs, as by intrinsic light." Bushman puts a period at the end of this quote when there should have been an ellipsis. The sentence concludes "the feeble or confused souls who are looking for guidance." Why did Bushman suggest that the sentence ended at "intrinsic light"? What was Quincy trying to say by this remark? Quincy clearly recognized Joseph as a natural and charismatic leader. While Quincy acknowledged Joseph's leadership strengths, this apparent compliment has to be tempered by the reference to "feeble or confused souls"? Also consider the Mulhausen and Munster references. I don't think that Quincy was in awe of Joseph, or impressed with Joseph in a positive way. Yet in the paragraph that contains this quote, Bushman is expressing his own sense of awe and marvel at Joseph's life and accomplishments. Bushman is entitled to his view of Joseph. But I don't think he is entitled to suggest that Quincy shared his view.
2. Bushman's discussion of the "View of the Hebrews" as a source for Joseph's writing the Book of Mormon (p. 96), fails to cite B. H. Roberts' extended essay documenting similarities between the two books. My concern is not with the merits of Roberts essay. The problem is that Bushman completely ignores Roberts essay in discussing this topic, as well as Roberts essay on archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. (p. 92) (Roberts essays are published by Signature Books: "Studies of the Book of Mormon", 1985, [...])
I could cite more problems but I would greatly exceed what I think is the appropriate length for an Amazon review.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 26, 2006