Comments on: Rough Stone Rolls Into Times and Seasons

By: Noel Hausler

Noel Hausler — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:28:32 +0000

I first read anythng Bushman wrote was in Dialogue Spring 1969. I had been lent material by the Tanners on the First Vision, where extensive quotes from Wes Walters. After Backman’s book came I wrote asking the Tanners if they thought his book was a reasonable response. They forwarded my letter to Walters who provided his own comments about Backman’s book. Backman interestingly enough does not have Walters writings listed in his bibliography.
Around the same time there was an American couple in my ward, I had just started subscribing to Dialogue. I asked them had they heard any comments from leaders in Slat Lake City as to what they thought of the Journal. Their comment was that they were uphappy about a certain article by a Presbyterian pastor on the revival question and the rather weak response by an LDS historian. Later when I purchased the back issue Spring 1969, I found that historian was none other than Dr Bushman. Reviews of Walter’s & Marquardt’s book Inventing Mormonism by LDS reviewers give grudging praise to his tenacity for dig up material from many sites. As I have yet to read the Bushman;s book , i wonder how much he relied on Backman’s book. Was Joseph Smith’s vision a Jesus vision, a common occurance for many at the time, or a full fledged, occurance motivated by a revival the evidence for which is not conclusive (1820, no but 1823-24 yes)
Also as Dr Bushman answered a question of mine on Zina Huntington at Griffith University, because of my hearing loss did not get it all. Was this thing with Zina Huntington (chasing another man’s wife ) was something to be acceptaed?

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:08:30 +0000

Thanks, Jonathan. We are glad that you have enjoyed it…

By: Jonathan Green

Jonathan Green — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:44:07 +0000

To everyone at T&S: a thousand thanks for organizing this, especially to the reviewers, and to Richard Bushman for participating. The reviews and responses are some of the most thoughtful and intelligent things I’ve ever read, with plenty to think about and chew over for a long time to come.

By: danithew

danithew — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:54:57 +0000

Thanks Bill. That’s the quote I was looking for.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:42:50 +0000

I was a the same stake conference, Danithew. Here is the quote in question, from Governor Ford of Illinois (the comparison to Mohammed seems to have something to do with polygamy, something left out of the conference exegesis):

“It is to be feared,” wrote Ford as he faced death,
that, in course of a century, some gifted man like Paul, some splendid orator, . . . may succeed in breathing a new life into this modern Mahometanism, and make the name of the martyred Joseph ring as loud, and stir the souls of men as much, as the mighty name of Christ itself. Sharon, Palmyra, Manchester, Kirtland, Far West, Adamon Diahmon, Ramus, Nauvoo, and the Carthage Jail, may become holy and venerable names, places of classic interest, in another age; like Jerusalem, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives, and Mount Calvary to the Christian, and Mecca and Medina to the Turk. And in that event, the author of this history feels degraded by the reflection, that the humble governor of an obscure State, who would otherwise be forgotten in a few years, stands a fair chance, like Pilate and Herod, by their official connection with the true religion, of being dragged down to posterity with an immortal name, hitched on to the memory of a miserable impostor. There may be those whose ambition would lead them to desire an immortal name in history, even in those humbling terms. I am not one of that number. [Thomas Ford, A History of Illinois . . . (Chicago, 1854), pp. 359-60]

I stole the citation from this site, where it is surrounded by other context:

http://www.rickgrunder.com/Ford%20Items/Ford%20Message%201844/ford1844.htm

By: danithew

danithew — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:39:55 +0000

What interests me is that during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime, some people (even he, it seems) saw a viable comparison between Joseph Smith’s future legacy and that of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. There’s a quote I’m looking for that I heard in church, where a former governor (in Missouri?) made the comparison. Anyone know the quote I’m talking about?

And btw, how is the accuracy of your site visit counter? ‘Cos it looks like it’s getting close to the 1 millionth visitor.

By: TMD

TMD — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:07:55 +0000

errr, too few degrees of freedom

By: TMD

TMD — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:58:30 +0000

It seems to me that had Bushman engaged more with the sociological literature he would have had a weaker book. When engaging with theory, the study of a single individual is by definition to what I would consider a case (unless you could break it up through time, but then you just have a highly biased small-n sample). This means his conclusion is either: these theories work (which means it’s a trite and unintersting case) OR these theories don’t work and I don’t know which one does (too many degree of freedom, having more theories/hypotheses than cases) (a book without any conclusions). Neither of which is very interesting. Only only only if you have a particular person whose life/experience is particularly intersting for the plausibility of the theory itself does ‘sociological biography’ make sense, and then the theory is the real focus of the book rather than the subject (see for instance Robert Wuthnow’s discussion of Martin Luther as a means of examining his concept of articulation, (Communities of Discourse, Harvard, 1989)).

Lacking his own theory, it would be odd and narrowing for Bushman to engage seriousy with sociology. Why this was not obvious to the sociologist is unclear to me…

History is a great ground for social scientists to learn how people interact, and while social science can be the source of insights about history, it cannot provide a comprehensive answer to the kinds of questions Bushman asks. Those questions are beyond its scope.

Additionally, I don’t think we should be concerned with how professional historians and sociologists respond to the book, since it is after all a biography and the place of biography in the academy is itself questionable (and questioned).

By: John C

John C — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:41:33 +0000

I just want to second Jonathan’s comment.

By: Jonathan Green

Jonathan Green — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:37:49 +0000

Actually, an entire session devoted to a recent scholarly work is one of the highest forms of respect that academics can show. Another would be critical engagement with a work outside one’s own discipline. Raising objections, posing questions from a new angle that an author may not have yet considered–that’s what academics get paid to do. Maybe I’m missing the whole context, but Melissa’s report on the session strikes me as quite a positive thing; it shows that Bushman’s book is one that can’t be simply ignored in more than one discipline.