Comments on: RSR reviews collected

By: Nancy Dipoma

Nancy Dipoma — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:12:03 +0000

I notice that Bushman documents as source material in many areas of Rough Stone Rolling works by Dennis Michael Quinn. I wonder if Bushman “ran” with the Quinn-published material or if he judiciously assessed the material.

Quinn is a gifted researcher but a biased, agenda-driven, revisionist writer of history. His hatchet job on Evan Stephens is just one example. I’ve found several examples of where the copious footnotes don’t substantiate the leaps to conclusions and speculative assessments of his narrative–specifically in Mormon Hierarchy–Extensions of Power. There are so many examples of impressive research but poor scholarship noted by reviewers of his works.

I’m concerned and frankly disappointed with Bushman’s seemingly extensive employment of works by Quinn.

By: ryyan lindgren

ryyan lindgren — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:20:01 +0000

another review-from a paper in Texas http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/living/religion/13725764.htm

By: Greg Call

Greg Call — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 03:07:43 +0000

I’ve added the New York Times review, as well as the review in Books and Culture.

By: ryan lindgren

ryan lindgren — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:50:47 +0000

christian science monitor review is here http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1220/p13s01-bogn.html

It’s pretty positive and I imagine some of the review will end up on the back or in the first few pages of the paperback.

By: Justin B.

Justin B. — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:14:20 +0000

It appears as a brief note in Riess’s list of the best religion books of 2005. The note states in full: “A mammoth, balanced biography of the controversial founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

By: Greg Call

Greg Call — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:47:06 +0000

Thanks Mark B., I’ve dropped the SD paper.

By: ryan lindgren

ryan lindgren — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:42:27 +0000

I actually e-mailed the miami herald (same as the San Diego paper) regarding the erronous attribution of Martha Becks Contents-It really wasn’t about breakoff polygamous groups that much. that was about three weeks ago and didn’t see any type of correction. Makes me question the reviewer.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:57:06 +0000

Greg,

A minor note: The Knight Ridder papers review is the same as the one that showed up in the San Diego paper (bylined there Alexandra Alter and with a Miami Herald copyright). I suspect that both those papers are KR papers.

By: Greg Call

Greg Call — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:26:07 +0000

Thanks Justin B. I’ve added the Naparsteck and the St. Louis paper. I’m sure FARMS has a full review forthcoming. I could not access the Publishers Weekly review by Reiss, but I noticed that there is a PW review on the Amazon site. Is the version on PW’s website (or the paper version) more extensive than what’s posted on Amazon?

By: Justin B.

Justin B. — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:45:01 +0000

Naparsteck's review has been posted here. Post-Dispatch review The latest FARMS Review has some brief comments on the book. Jana Riess named it one of the year's best. It's unfortunate that additional reviews published in the Tucson Citizen, New York Sun, Providence Journal, and the Guelph Mercury do not seem to be available online.