- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I finished reading this book last week and overall I think it is a well-researched source for most of the missing details of Joseph Smith’s history that you probably won’t ever hear about in Sunday school but without some of the bias that you will find in a lot of blatant anti-Mormon propaganda. It doesn’t disappoint in this respect because it contains many things that are almost certainly true but as Boyd K. Packer would say, “not very useful” (to the Church). For example, it talks about the Danites, money-digging, the failed anti-bank fiasco, the Kinderhook plates, Zelph, and most importantly Joseph Smith’s somewhat secret practice of polygamy (mostly hidden from Emma) without trying to whitewash or hide from the basic facts. Personally, I don’t really trust the accuracy of most anti-Mormon propaganda or even the opinions of disaffected or excommunicated Church members like Grant Palmer or D. Michael Quinn. If people have an axe to grind then sometimes it’s hard to separate the facts from all the biased opinions and hearsay specifically selected and formulated to support some author’s agenda. But Richard Bushman is a practicing Mormon and he seems sympathetic towards Joseph Smith and the Church throughout the book so I really don’t think he had any reason to lie about things or misrepresent any information in a way that would be less than flattering for the Church.
Like Jesus said, “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32) and that’s why I highly recommend reading this book because at least it’s not trying to hide from any inconvenient information that isn’t exactly faith-promoting but is still a relevant part of Joseph Smith’s life story. Overall I think this book will generally help open-minded readers that are truly interested in Mormon history to gain a better understanding and feel for the early history of the Church regardless of whether they are TBM apologists, ex-Mormons, New Order Mormons, Jack Mormons, non-Mormons, or if they’re not really sure what to think about the LDS Church.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Personally, I don’t really trust the accuracy of most anti-Mormon propaganda or even the opinions of disaffected or excommunicated Church members like Grant Palmer and D. Michael Quinn. If people have an axe to grind then sometimes it’s hard to separate the facts from all the biased opinions and hearsay specifically selected and formulated to support some author’s agenda.
I totally agree, DA. I like RSR for the exact same reason…it presents the topics, but leaves it at what is known through a historian’s eyes, without making it a platform to prove or disprove anything.
While many anti-mormon sources have pieces of information, I just could never trust what info is accurate or what is biased, so I could never learn anything from it…but wondered about a lot of things I couldn’t find in church documents. I think RSR helped me a lot for this reason, and then I was not uneasy about topics so much.
DA wrote:Personally, I don’t really trust the accuracy of most anti-Mormon propaganda or even the opinions of disaffected or excommunicated Church members like Grant Palmer or D. Michael Quinn. If people have an axe to grind then sometimes it’s hard to separate the facts from all the biased opinions and hearsay specifically selected and formulated to support some author’s agenda.
I actually disagree with this. I think good research is good research no matter the source. The Tanner’s have produced some very good research, and yet they are the quintessential anti-Mormons. And while Quinn may be excommunicated, he is nowhere near an anti-Mormon – in fact he’s a believer. Personally, I think Bushman’s work stands up to scrutiny regardless of whether or not he is a Mormon. And so does Quinn’s (most of the time).Personally, I think a better approach is to look at each author’s research independent of their personal biases. It should be able to stand or fall on its own merits. Additionally, it may very well be a misnomer that “suspensive historiography” is actually history. There is an article at BCC
hereQuote:I actually am of the persuasion that I would rather see the facts and draw my own conclusions, but even the “facts” are very messy and much less cut and dry than we would like.
As a former history teacher, I agree with that statement completely. It’s interesting that there might not have been a single event in the history of the world that was interepreted the same way by everyone who expereinced it to some degree – much less by those who were further and further removed from it. It sounds a bit hyperbolic to say that, but it’s one of the few things I believe is Absolute Truth – that history (even immediate history) is not as easy to understand as most people think.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:I actually am of the persuasion that I would rather see the facts and draw my own conclusions, but even the “facts” are very messy and much less cut and dry than we would like.
As a former history teacher, I agree with that statement completely. It’s interesting that there might not have been a single event in the history of the world that was interepreted the same way by everyone who expereinced it to some degree – much less by those who were further and further removed from it. It sounds a bit hyperbolic to say that, but it’s one of the few things I believe is Absolute Truth – that history (even immediate history) is not as easy to understand as most people think.
Ray, incidentally, I’m wondering if you happened to read that “suspensive historiography” post at BCC the other day (I linked to it above)? If so, as a history teacher what did you think of his ideas? I think his ideas give books like Brodie’s a bit more credit, even if she does project onto Joseph what she thinks he was thinking.Euhemerus wrote:DA wrote:Personally, I don’t really trust the accuracy of most anti-Mormon propaganda or even the opinions of disaffected or excommunicated Church members like Grant Palmer or D. Michael Quinn. If people have an axe to grind then sometimes it’s hard to separate the facts from all the biased opinions and hearsay specifically selected and formulated to support some author’s agenda.
I actually disagree with this. I think good research is good research no matter the source. The Tanner’s have produced some very good research, and yet they are the quintessential anti-Mormons. And while Quinn may be excommunicated, he is nowhere near an anti-Mormon – in fact he’s a believer…Personally, I think a better approach is to look at each author’s research independent of their personal biases.Right, I’m not trying to say that just because they were excommunicated/disfellowshipped that this means that the research of Grant Palmer, D. Michael Quinn, Simon Southerton, etc. is completely inaccurate or just because the Tanners are anti-Mormons everything they say is automatically wrong. I’m sure that much of what they say is probably more accurate than what you will read in Church approved books like “Truth Restored.”
All I’m saying is that sometimes their agendas make me somewhat suspicious about what they say and what evidence they dig up and choose to include in their work while apparently deliberately excluding anything positive towards Mormonism as if they only want to present one side of the story (theirs). If I’m going to take the time to read a book cover-to-cover then I would much rather see both sides of the story similar to what Richard Bushman has done here.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:All I’m saying is that sometimes their agendas make me somewhat suspicious about what they say and what evidence they dig up and choose to include in their work while apparently deliberately excluding anything positive towards Mormonism as if they only want to present one side of the story (theirs). If I’m going to take the time to read a book cover-to-cover then I would much rather see both sides of the story similar to what Richard Bushman has done here.
Yes, I think I can fully agree with that. For me, the other side of the coin is that I’ve read several hagiographic biographies of Joseph Smith that did the same thing in the opposite, deliberately excluding anything negative towards Mormonism or Joseph. In fact, this type of thing leads many to disaffection as they are not properly “inoculated” as it were. As you said, I’m more interested in seeing both sides, and I agree that Bushman has done a pretty good job of this.Ultimately, I think where I have a problem is the stigma that somehow anti-Mormons are the only ones who have this little thing called bias (I know you’re not saying that), and that their agenda somehow is indicative of their research. When I went through my faith crisis I had a close friend tear apart the Wikipedia page on the Book of Mormon citing things like the “tone” of the article, and disparaging the references made therein. As I dug deeper I found the Wikipedia article (like most of them) to be fairly good and balanced. It was my friend who had the bias. I have later found this to be a common apologist technique – apply a liberal
ad hominemattack casting doubt on all research because of a personality flaw or tone in the message. Personally, I think this type of attack says more about the apologists that it does about the person or research being discredited. I think the hallmarks of good research are something everyone should familiarize themselves with over the course of their life. Learning to distinguish truth from error is critical to not being deceived. On the other hand, this is all said from the POV of a truthseeker. As my wife would remind me, there are those less interested in truth, and more interested in just living life! That’s why I’m here discussing this with you all, and she’s playing with my kids.
😆 😆 I’ll chime in a bit…I absolutely agree that good research is good research, and I tried to be as unbiased as I possibly could in my “crisis” time. I was asked to be in a “study group” when Grant Palmer was doing his research for his book, and even though I think a few of his conclusions are off a bit, he was extremely thorough and did his due diligence, IMO. There was a time in the early 90s when the “vaults” were open to church educators, and much of what Palmer, Quinn and others wrote about came as a result of new information that came available then.
It was quite disturbing to Grant, who had spent most of his life dedicated to the church, and he did feel a certain amount of duty to write his book to disclose what many hadn’t known about the early church. He continued for some time to be active and wanted to simply set the story straight…but there ensued a witch hunt of sorts for him, and I don’t think he is as eager today to remain in the church.
Having been a part of it, I was really struck by the personal attacks many apologists threw at him to discredit his work. Jeff Lindsay spent most of his “critique” of the book saying how Grant lied about his church service. The attacks alone was eye-opening to me as to how defensive the apologists can be…disappointingly mean and political.
But the experience allowed me to see “religion” in the light of a political, corporate system, and I think almost any powerful religion will have its salesmanship and white-washing events to convert and retain members. It’s just sad it has to be that way, especially when you are “selling” a culture based on honesty and love for others. I guess it is human nature…and seems nobody is immune.
But the upside for me was that I evolved to become responsible for my own spirituality. Nobody else can do that for me. Yes, it was a bit unnatural at first — the LDS culture is quite filled with “leaders” that tell us how to live. But for me, I found that we are each uniquely individual, and our communion with God is also individual. With that, I found much peace — and forgiveness for what others do that probably have the best of intentions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.