A good friend of mine was quite the ladies’ man in High School. During General Conference, he took a particularly, ahem, frisky, girl with him down to the Tabernacle to attend a Saturday session. After the session they went back to his truck, which was parked along first avenue just a block east of the Church Office Building. They took advantage of the warm spring day and indulged their youthful passions in an enthusiastic makeout session.

They were horizontal in the truck when they heard footsteps approaching through their rolled-down window. My friend didn’t think too much of it at first, so focused was he on the attractive young woman in the car. But the footsteps got nearer and nearer, until they finally stopped right beside the truck. My friend looked up and saw L. Tom Perry looking down at the two of them.

Read more »

I’ve heard that phrase applied twice recently to the Iraq War. First time it came out of Jimmy Carter’s mouth, and just last week, Madeleine Albright made the same claim. Even if you sympathize with Carter and Albright’s dim view of the second Iraq war, the long term consequences are not completely known, so whatever the deficiencies of the Iraq war, for now their belief must be classified as a prediction, not a careful judgment made by informed consideration of American history. Though they used the word ‘history,’ that statement is not really about history. (Another possibility, though I prefer the other one, is that Carter and Albright just don’t know much American history.)

My purpose in bringing this up is not, please no, to reopen wounds or reignite a debate that few of us can have dispassionately and respectfully. Instead, it is to ask (the current Iraq war excluded) what is the worst foreign policy blunder ever made by this country? In other words, let’s open some different partisan wounds! That way, at some future date when we can evaluate the Iraq war with the full benefit of hindsight, we will be able to place the Iraq war and all its associated costs and consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, in proper perspective. I will propose several here, but I think–whatever your partisan affiliation–you could probably find foreign policy decisions that were much more catastrophic than the Iraq war will turn out to be, even if the worst things people say about it come to pass. A cynic could say to Carter and Albright, “You think the Iraq war is a disaster? Don’t worry. We could do a lot worse. And we have!”

Read more »

In my concluding post on Rough Stone Rolling, I thought we’d explore the question of history and how (or even if) it can illuminate religious faith. What are the duties of a scholar? What is naturalistic history and is it always bound to offend believers? Can history arbitrate the truth claims of a religion? Does a book like Bushman’s help us learn more about Joseph Smith and help deepen our faith?

Read more »

We have heard a lot of controversy about using Obama’s middle name, Hussein (most people probably don’t even know who it refers to), but few have inquired about where his first name comes from (Newsweek this week talks about how Senator Obama switched from referring to himself as Barry to Barack, but never tells you what Barack means.) So here, perhaps for the first time, you can learn what his first name means and where it comes from.

Read more »

Most of these postings on Joseph Smith’s history and Bushman’s biography of him have focused on the interplay between scholarship and faith. Here let’s turn the focus completely inward: Are there parts of Joseph Smith’s story that are so damaging we should avoid discussing them outside the domains of specialists, assuring that the rank-and-file members never hear anything that might trouble their faith? Does Bushman focus too much on the earthy and unflattering aspects of Joseph Smith’s character in his book? Should we counsel our Latter-day Saint friends and neighbors of fragile faith to avoid this book?

Read more »

One of the questions I’ve had for a long time is what caused the Missouri (and Nauvoo, and Kirtland) persecutions. As a believer, I think it’s pretty clear that many of the neighbors of the early Mormons were clearly possessed by Satan, stirred up to the most incredible, out-of-proportion vitriol. But that characterization isn’t a historical argument. If we say that is the proximate cause, which I think is plausible religiously, it still doesn’t answer the question historically. So why did the Mormons provoke such persecutions? It’s indisputable that Mormonism was (is?) far and away the most persecuted religious sect in American history, and America has been full of oddball religions. Was it simply that Mormonism was too successful? Or did the Mormons invite this persecution somehow?

Read more »

On a separate post we were discussing whether Joseph Smith was a mystic. I was delighted with the thoughtful and interesting discussion that followed. That thread is one of those cases where many of the comments surpass the original post in both quality and rigor of thought. Whether you think Joseph Smith was a mystic or whether you agree with me that he wasn’t, I think it’s undeniable that many of the texts cited as being mystical are more properly considered apocalyptic.

Read more »

How does Joseph’s flagship religious tract, Book of Mormon, compare to the works of famous mystics like William Blake, Swedenborg, the Bagavad Gita, the Kaballah, or even Nostradamus? As mystical literature, I’m afraid, the Book of Mormon is very disappointing. It’s too naturalistic, and there’s not enough fantasy. While Krishna is flying around in his airplanes, Coriantumr is decapitating Shiz. While Swedenborg is communing with heavenly spirits in the celestial realms, Ammon is chopping off some arms. And it’s too easy to understand; you want vague and poetic stuff, that people really have to chew on, and are never quite sure they’ve understood. That’ll keep their attention. And when they’re wrong, we can always just claim the interpretation was wrong, rather than the holy revealed text itself.

The only parts of the Book of Mormon that do that were either censored (the “sealed portion”) or cribbed from Isaiah, and you could have saved yourself three bucks and just read the original from the Bible, but anyway Ezekiel’s the Old Testament prophet to go with if you really want to trip out. If you’re going to invent a new scripture, the Book of Mormon is exactly the opposite kind of book a mystic would write.

Read more »

Dan Ellsworth: Rough Stone Rolling presented a mixed picture of the history of Joseph’s revelations. I came away from the book believing that Joseph had authentic revelations, “apocryphal” insights that seem less trustworthy, and some plain old misfires from time to time. I know that seems like a deflating concept to a lot of people – that Joseph could err in his discernment on occasion – and I admit I occasionally found myself disappointed and saddened to read of Joseph’s mistakes. Read more »

Bushman points out that the First Vision was not an unusual thing for the time and, while controversial, was certainly not out of place in the “burnt over district.” But you cannot say the same thing for this extraordinary idea about translating. Translation in Joseph Smith’s day, as it is in ours, was considered a learned exercise, something for the Charles Anthons of the world. Nothing in his background could prepare him for being a seer and translator, aside from a few unhelpful hints in the Bible and perhaps some folk magic (though there is no case of it being used to translate that I know of). Smith’s best source of his role as a translator came to him as he was translating, since the Book of Mormon itself treats the topic extensively, most notably with King Mosiah. Here the assumption by Vogel, Metcalfe, etc. falls down, I think, because their argument that Joseph absorbed, fermented, and then regurgitated controversies and preoccupations of his milieu had no precedent for seership or translating. Visions, yes. Treasure-digging, yes. Charismatic, apocalyptic prophets, check. Controversial sexual and family practices, check. Mound-building Indians, yes. (Though not, it is very important to clarify, the kind of vast and highly developed civilizations depicted in the Book of Mormon; that was considered ridiculous and in fact invited quite a bit of ridicule by Joseph’s peers). Read more »

Dan Ellsworth: One of the most profound insights RSR provided into Joseph’s psyche was Joseph’s effort to redeem his own father. Reading of Joseph’s reaction to the baptism of his father – weeping for a good part of the day – was a huge eye-opener for me. It was clear that Joseph saw in that ordinance a redemptive power he deeply wanted his father to experience. And it was hard for me to imagine a religious fraud, as many claim Joseph to be, responding the way he did to that event. Here is how Bushman portrays the event on page 110 in RSR:

Following the organization of the Church of Christ, Joseph Smith Sr. was baptized in a small stream on Hyrum’s farm. Lucy said that Joseph Jr. grasped his father’s hand as he came out of the water and cried out, “Oh! My God I have lived to see my father baptized into the true church of Jesus Christ”! According to Joseph Knight, Joseph “bast out with greaf and joy and seamed as tho the whole world Could not hold him.” He “went out into the Lot and appeard to want to git out of site of every Body and would sob and Crie and seamed to Be so full that he could not live.” Knight and Oliver Cowdery went after Joseph and finally brought him back to the house. “He was the most wrot upon that I ever saw any man,” Knight said. “His joy semed to Be full.” Some great tension had been relieved.

That is not the response of a fraud. Read more »

Bushman wanted a book to replace Brodie’s, which he feels is a poor book, not to mention dated. He also wanted to write a book that scholars as well as Church members could embrace. He failed in this (at least for the world, which still favors Brodie). I think its popularity is a sign of the LDS members’ hunger for recognition and respect from the world; if they don’t believe, at least they’ll appreciate and respect Joseph Smith’s religion- making genius (as Harold Bloom puts it). Bushman himself is trying to write an intellectual biography that deals with Joseph’s thought as much as it talks about the events of his life. It gives equal, or greater, weight to his thinking as to what he did. In every respect it is the superior to Fawn Brodie’s book, which I have read and found slapdash and illogical, which it obscures with its well-turned phrases. Brodie was a delightful writer, and I think a lot of historians who should have known better forgive her for her grave historiographical sins because she’s an engaging and likable writer. That’s a tragedy. I concur with Harold Bloom’s lament about Joseph Smith (from American Religion):

We do not know Joseph Smith, as he prophesied that even his own could never hope to know him. He requires strong poets, major novelist, accomplished dramatists to tell his history, and they have not yet come to him.

Strong historians, at least, are starting to come to him, but the world continues to ignore him and them.

Read more »

With the LDS Curriculum for Priesthood and Relief Society, it seems as good a time as any to have an online discussion on Richard Bushman’s book Rough Stone Rolling and Joseph Smith in general. Ellsworth and I will be posting a bunch of our thoughts on various aspects of Joseph Smith’s character and our reactions to the book.

This being a blog, we’re going to chop it up into blog- and bite-sized bits, with posts on revelation, translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s family, and so on. We’ll try to keep the discussion on each of these themes continuing on the comment threads, while other aspects of the book we’ll put in new posts. Let’s confine the discussion on each topic to that particular comment thread. Our co-bloggers are welcome to join us in as well.

All right, let’s let get this rough stone rolling…

…Shakespeare, that is. It would also be good for John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Dodd, and perhaps soon, Hillary. Actually, it kind of makes me want to try some winter camping again.

This scene is from “As You Like It”. The Duke of Amiens has suffered a political reverse of his own, and takes exile in the forest of Arden. There is much I could say, but it would all sound so inarticulate set next to Shakespeare, so I’ll let it stand on its own: Read more »

Thanks to my friend Dan for that kind (and undeserved) intro. I thought for my first outing I’d post a meditation on knowledge, particularly what I think is our uniquely Mormon way of knowing. Every Primary student knows that we can ask God for revelation and expect to get a prayer answered. Our idea that we can all receive revelation, big and small, over our own area of stewardship, offends our Christian brethren. Our belief in personal revelation is unusual, but that alone doesn’t make us unique. Read more »