CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF
RICHARD L. BUSHMAN’S BOOK
JOSEPH SMITH: ROUGH STONE ROLLING

By Peter_Mary


The following was gathered from an online web log I produced while reading the book. It is presented in a completely conversational and informal voice, assuming my audience to be friends. I do not claim to be a scholar or especially well informed, merely an interested reader with considerable “other” reading under my belt.

By way of format, all the quotes from the book are in highlighted boxes with the heading Richard L. Bushman at the top. On occasion, quotes from other sources are handled similarly, and the heading at the top of the box will reflect the source.

Reading “Rough Stone Rolling” So You Don’t Have To
My intention (and remember, the road to Outer Darkness is paved with good intentions) is to treat this thread a bit like a blog (“web log” to the uninitiated) as I read through Richard L. Bushman's "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling". Whether or not I remember to come back after each chapter and post something remains to be seen.

Preface
Let me state right from the beginning that I do not pretend to be an objective, 3rd Party reviewer of this book. Not even close. The reason I am reading this in the first place is that I believe that this book represents an effort on the part of the Church to begin the process of changing the way in which the faithful think about the origins of their church, and the mechanism most useful in such endeavors is a little device well understood by politicians and prophets alike: spin.

I'm looking for the "spin" in this book in an effort to expose it. And while I'll try to offer kudos where they are deserved, for the most part, I want to understand what the Church is trying to do as it redefines "faithful history."

So first, a kudo: It is written in a prose that is easy to read, yet without being insulting. He's a decent writer and he's had some decent editorial assistance.

If I come up with other Kudos, I'll share 'em. But in the meantime...

Bushman's bias as an apologist comes out in the very first page. I'll quote from the middle of page xix of the preface:

Richard Bushman
Everything about Smith matters to people who have built their lives on his teachings. To protect their own deepest commitments, believers want to shield their prophet's reputation. On the other hand, people who have broken away from Mormonism—and they produce a large amount of the scholarship—have to justify their decision to leave. They cannot countenance evidence of divine inspiration in his teachings without catching themselves in a disastrous error. Added to these combatants are those suspicious of all religious authority who find in Joseph Smith a perfect target for their fears.

See, believers are worried about Joseph's reputation. They want to protect that which is precious, namely their own "deepest commitments." In other words, they feel compelled to protect the Lord's anointed, and defend his foibles. They act out of honor for the man, lest any besmirch his good name, reputation or teachings. Deep commitments are noble, and protecting the innocent is a noble endeavor. Any fear they have is only that their prophet may have, during moments of lapse, acted only human.

From this same perspective, those who have left, or who have never believed, must be afraid. They are afraid to face the "evidence of [Smith's] divine inspiration" for fear they were wrong, and in so doing, discover the disaster that is their life now that they have strayed. Everything they do in researching Smith's story is in a pathetic attempt to justify their leaving, and presumably to justify the behaviors they must surely have embraced as a result, namely drinking and debauchery.

Therefore, the agenda of the apostate is to prove others wrong, thereby justifying the errors of their own ways; an ignoble and selfish agenda. The agenda of the believer is to protect the prophet, and thereby God; a noble and righteous endeavor.

Does anyone else read this into the quote above? It seems clear to me that he is drawing a line in the sand. It's a paradigm of "Reassurance versus Fear" and clearly good people land on the reassurance side, while the wicked land on the side of fear. The faithful often need reassurance...no harm in that. But the wicked have much to fear, for fear is the antithesis of faith.

Later on the first page, Bushman makes the claim that "Most readers do no believe in, nor are they interested in perfection. Flawless characters are neither attractive or useful."

I'm not convinced this is true. I am inclined to believe that the very reason the church has tried for years to cover up the "rough edges" of Joseph Smith is precisely because they wanted to portray an image of godly perfection. And I believe that the average, run-of-the-mill Mormon thinks that the worst thing Joseph ever did was perhaps, briefly, think a slightly unkind thought, of which he quickly repented. No, we were taught that he wasn't perfect—that honor was reserved for Jesus Himself—but he wasn't far from it. And it was in part his own personal "Perfection" that lent so much credibility to his outlandish story!

Bushman's confession—At the bottom of page xx, Bushman makes it clear what we are about to read: "Perhaps he [Joseph Smith] cannot be entirely known, but my aim has been to imagine him as fully as the record allows." (Emphasis added). In other words, "I don't feel constrained by objective reality, but rather I am free to interpret the man at will." Now, I have no problem with that, but the fact of the matter is, when we read history like that, we are learning as much about the historian as we are the subject. So what Bushman has confessed here in the preface is that we are about to launch into the projective world of Richard L. Bushman, and the vehicle in which we will ride is the life of Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that most casual readers of this book, particularly of the Mormon faith, are going to appreciate this very plainly stated fact.

Okay, one more for this chapter. Bushman makes a big deal on page xxi of the Preface of exploring "a side of Joseph Smith not adequately examined in other biographies: his religious thought."

Frankly, I felt Fawn Brodie did a fair job of that, but Bushman apparently feels she must not have, else she would have inevitably come to the same conclusions that he has.

Anyway, Bushman makes quite a case for examining the religious thought of Joseph Smith, but makes no mention (at least at this point) of Smith's motive. See, it is clear already that Bushman doesn't question the revelatory nature of Smith's proclamations and assertions. Here's another example, from the bottom of page xxi (part of a longer argument during which Bushman asserts that Smith absolutely believed his own prophetic promptings and revelatory statements):

Richard Bushman
Toward the end of his life, he told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation." To blur the distinction—to insist that Smith devised every revelation himself—obscures the very quality that made the Prophet powerful. To get inside the movement, we have to think of Smith as the early Mormons thought of him and as he thought of himself—as a revelator.

In other words, if you really want to understand the Mormons, you've got to believe as they do. It's the classic Mormon argument for obtaining a witness to the truthfulness of the gospel...and I remember teaching it myself! It goes something like this: If you want to find out that something is true, believe that it is, and see what happens. If it produces good fruit (as in Alma 32), then it was good. If not, then toss it aside. That looks good on the face of it. But the reality is, it takes effort and commitment to believe in the first place. Otherwise, you're just trying to play games with yourself—and with God. So if you don’t gain a witness, that means you didn't do it right. Only if you do gain a witness can you be assured that you did it right.

It's an amazingly circular, self-referencing logic. And Bushman is employing the same thing. "If you want to understand the Prophet, you have to set aside your skepticism, because otherwise, you'll never see him for the divinely inspired prophet that he was. But if you do believe he was a prophet, then you'll see right away that he was!” (If that was confusing, don't worry...it was meant to be, because that's the rationale behind the argument, and it is at its core illogical.)

So then, to sum up the "spin" in the Preface, it's that Bushman is trying to bolster his credibility, trying to sound like an objective historian, but in truth, he makes it clear that he cannot be. He is faithful first, and that will guide the telling of the rest of his tale—just another faithful history, with a bit more candor.

Joseph Smith Chronology
Among the first entries to the book is a chronology, laying out for the reader the timeline of Smith's life, and giving some important insight into the issues that Bushman considers important. Although many (or all) of the missing chronological issues are covered in the book, I think it's very telling that they are missing from the list. Such a device is used to highlight "important junctures" in a person's life, and the fact that these have been left out means something about the author. I'm not smart enough to know what all is missing, but there are a few glaring items that I saw. Here are the few I caught:

1819 Joseph borrows Sally Chase's "green glass" and uses it to find his first Seer Stone.

1822 Joseph finds his favorite Seer Stone while digging a well for the Chase family. This is the one with which he translates most of the Book of Mormon.

1825 Joseph is given a third Seer Stone by diviner Jack Belcher.

1826 Joseph is tried and found guilty of the misdemeanor known as "glass-looking" and fined.

1833 Joseph "marries" Fanny Alger in a clandestine ceremony that quite possibly includes the unfortunate circumstance of Emma Smith spying the two of them having a romp in the barn.

1838 Joseph "marries" Lucinda Morgan Harris as the first of his polyandrous wives.

Note that Bushman does include Joseph's marriage to Louisa Beaman in 1840, noting it as the "first of many Nauvoo plural marriages." Now, that right there is more than many Mormons are aware, but Bushman stops there in his chronology. Emma gets a mention in 1827, Louisa gets a mention in 1840, but none of the other wives get a mention. It appears to me to be an attempt to gloss over the "hard stuff" in the name of expediency (it's just easiest to lump them all together in a single point in the chronology...listing each one separately would just draw disproportionate attention to this icky little black mark by the Prophet's name).

Bushman also glosses this issue over by including in his chronology for 1843, "Revelation on priesthood marriage recorded." Priesthood marriage?” Why didn't he come right out and call it "plural marriage?" That's what he's talking about.

It is also important to note here that in the heading for D&C 132, it states clearly that "Although the revelation [for plural marriage] was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." There is no mention of that in the chronology, and I would suspect it's because in 1831, Joseph was responding to Oliver Cowdery's accusations regarding "the dirty affair" of Joseph and Fanny Alger, and working hard to appease the leaders who had learned of the matter. I think it's utterly clear to anyone familiar with Smith's history that Fanny Alger was a fling, an affair, with a 16 year old, and that the notion that he must have "married" her was a retrofit by people (Joseph included) who were desperate to account for something so explicitly prohibited by virtually every reputable Christian preacher and faith of the day. I haven't gotten there in the book yet, but Bushman has decided that these events were "unimportant" in the life of Joseph Smith...which is ironic that it is precisely these kinds of events that caused so many of us to go, "What the...?"

1842 Joseph joins the Nauvoo Freemasonry Lodge, and is immediately elevated to the status of Master Mason.

Now, Bushman does note that in 1842, the lodge was organized, but he makes no mention of Joseph. Considering the importance of Masonry in the creation of the Temple ceremony, which is considered the cornerstone of the current Mormon religion, you'd think it would be important to note Joseph's elevated status in Masonry. But the chronology doesn't even mention it. Gosh, I wonder why? Must have forgot...

1843 Joseph is asked to interpret the Kinderhook Plates, and he reveals that they are similar in writing to the Book of Mormon.

Again, Bushman considers this too unimportant to include in the chronology, evidence that he is choosing to "protect the reputation" of the Prophet. I realize he covers the Kinderhook Plates in the book, but the fact that they are left off the chronology indicates their importance to Bushman.

All those who think the Kinderhook Plates are significant, raise your hand.

Thanks...I thought you'd agree!

1844 Joseph is anointed King of All Israel

Man, wouldn't you think that a royal ordination would be an important event in a man's life? Surely this is merely an unfortunate oversight on Bushman's part, which will no doubt be corrected in later editions...

There are probably other notable issues excluded from the chronology, but these were the ones that jumped out at me.

Post Script: I readily acknowledge that a biographer is entitled to decide what chronological issues are important depending on how he or she defines relevance and importance in outlining a person's life. The reason I felt the omissions were significant were because each of those items plays such an important role in bumping so many people out of the Church. If it's important to note Smith's contributions that are responsible for causing many people to join and/or remain faithful, it is also important to recognize the many issues that keep people out or drive people out when they uncover them. Failure to acknowledge those items in the chronology leaves the reader with a rather unbalanced view of the man's life.


Prologue
I’m not positive what Bushman’s objective is in the Prologue…I think it might be to demonstrate that other credible people who were not Mormons also recognized something special in Joseph Smith. The setting of this short chapter is the encounter between Joseph Smith and Josiah Quincy, a successful railroad executive and son of the President of Harvard who was traveling with Charles Francis Adams, son of John Quincy Adams. The manner in which Bushman relates the tale suggests that he believes that Quincy could sense something “special” about the Prophet, but because of the pride of his learning, could never humble himself to accept ole’ Joe for anything more than a charismatic frontier leader.

Here are some excerpts that highlight this idea:

Richard Bushman
Quincy’s account of his Nauvoo visit, published the winter before his death in 1882, was filled with puzzled skepticism. He balked at the stories Joseph told him, and he knew his readers would find Mormon beliefs “puerile and shocking,” yet Smith struck him: “One could not resist the impression that capacity and resource were natural to his stalwart person.”

I believe Quincy is speaking exactly to the characteristics of Joseph that made him successful among men. He was a natural born leader, filled with “capacity and resource,” the kind of charisma that people often line up and follow because it looks like that person is going somewhere, anywhere, other than the hum-drum foot-dragging of normal daily existence living on the ragged edge between life and death.

Hitler had the same capacity, convincing a whole generation of Germans that his vision for their future was brighter than their own. This is not evidence of “other-worldliness” as I THINK Bushman is trying to suggest of Smith; it’s evidence of a great, charismatic leader. Hitler is a fine example that great leadership hardly requires the inspiration of God—it most certainly can be a human trait encountered with some regularity over the course of human history. I think the world can be glad Smith was born in a backwater time and place.

Unfortunately (and I believe unfairly), Bushman is quick to judge Quincy as inadequate spiritually, and therefore incapable of appreciating Smith’s prophetic calling. Bushman compares the early teachings of Smith to a handful of collected writings from Ralph Waldo Emerson, including a seminar given by Emerson to the Harvard Divinity School in which he extolled the virtues of seeking continued revelation (which was a concept of which the Unitarians of the day, including Quincy, had no appreciation.) Bushman says:

Richard Bushman
Had Emerson looked, he would have found thousands of kindred spirits among unsophisticated Christians, who longed for visions, visitations, inspired dreams, revelations, and every other outpouring of the Spirit. These seekers were Joseph’s natural constituency. Quincy was too caught up in Smith’s personality to see him as his followers did, as another Moses who brought news from heaven.

That’s a rather heavily laden statement right there. Think about what he’s saying! As I read it, it’s as if he’s talking about a “bunch of country bumpkins who believed in Leprechauns and trolls, and who also believed that buried treasure laid littered under the ground. (Oh, wait…they did believe in buried treasure…) He might just as well have said that Smith’s natural followers were gullible, uneducated folks who were filled with superstition, and who watched for demons around every tree stump and angels in every rafter. This is not inspirational to me, personally. These are the same people who perpetrated the Salem witch trials for example, and who, like Smith and his family, practiced magic for the purpose of getting rich or extracting vengeance on their enemies.

Now, I suppose you could say that’s evidence that God works his miracles through the simple, and no one could argue since no one really knows the mind of God. But if I apply Occam’s razor here, and assume that supernatural explanations are seldom the most direct, rational solution to a question, then it becomes far more likely in my mind that these people were easily manipulated by a bright, charismatic man filled with promise and knowing instinctively how to capture their imagination—with visions and heavenly messages and new knowledge delivered by angels. Of course this isn’t going to be appealing to educated and sophisticated folks…not because they are blind, but because they opened their eyes to reason long ago, and no longer view the world as magical and supernatural.

If you’ll recall from the preface, where Bushman accuses those who have left Mormonism as unwilling to “countenance evidence of divine inspiration in [Smith’s] teachings…” I think it equally as obvious that Bushman and all faithful members are equally unwilling to countenance evidence of the more mundane explanations of Joseph Smith. Remember the Simon & Garfunkle song, “The Boxer,” in which they sing, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”? Well, exactly my point. Bushman is at least as guilty of this as the apostates he condemns.

Next, I think it’s telling that Bushman refers to “visions, visitations, inspired dreams and revelations” as “outpourings of the Spirit.” He doesn’t question it. It’s a matter of fact. The Spirit acts in this way, and the people who have not been blinded by the learning of men yearn for the good old days when those kinds of things were common place, as evidenced by the Bible that they love (whole other treatise there…). So buried in that statement is the assurance on Bushman’s part that Joseph’s “natural constituency” was rightly predisposed to expect these kinds of spiritual outpourings, and that Quincy, by virtue of his pride, was “too caught up in Smith’s personality” to see him for the real Prophet that he was. What I’m saying here is that the writer, Bushman, is exposing his own bias in the retelling of this story and interpreting it for the reader. That’s okay…he wrote the book, he can do it however he wants, but it would be irresponsible to portray this kind of writing as somehow “definitive” or “authoritative,” which is what I fear will happen if the book is well received. It’s an interpretation, nothing more. Maybe even a good one, but merely one man’s opinion.

Last, I’ll wrap up with this final quote, which is a doozy:

Richard Bushman
At the end of the day, on their way to the [boat] landing, Joseph flashed a side of his personality that Quincy had not previously seen. Quincy remarked to Smith, “You have too much power to be safely trusted to one man.” Joseph replied that in Quincy’s hands or another person’s “so much power would, no doubt, be dangerous. I am the only man in the world whom it would be safe to trust with it. Remember, I am a Prophet!” The manner of Joseph’s answer intrigued Quincy. “The last five words were spoken in a rich, comical aside, as if in hearty recognition of the ridiculous sound they might have in the ears of a Gentile.” Joseph knew his visitor was amused and skeptical, yet remained unfazed, sure of himself no matter what the Bostonian thought.

How can Bushman make that last assertion? How can he possibly attempt to know the mind of the Prophet in that moment? This is all Smith had to say about it in his personal journal:

Joseph Smith
May 15, 1844—“A son of John Quincy Adams, Mr. Quincy and Dr. Goforth visited at the Mansion. Much rain this A.M.”

I think it’s just as likely that Joseph’s narcissism prohibited his full understanding of the meeting. Quincy notes in his recollections of the encounter that here is a frontier leader wielding way too much power—the Nauvoo charter, being the de facto Mayor, Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion, President of the Church receiving offerings and making every religious and secular move on behalf of his followers—who simply brushes it all aside as the natural consequences of his personal greatness. Quincy is aware that Smith is running for President, and appears to me to be rightfully cautious about this renegade Prophet out west. Smith, for his part, can’t even entertain the possibility that these men might have served him well in his bid for the presidency, because his narcissism precludes him from seeing the value in anyone but himself.

As I said at the outset, I’m not clear what Bushman’s motive was with the Prologue, but it left me with a greater appreciation for the innate skills of the man Joseph Smith, and further convinced that it was in large part the product of his pathology (narcissistic personality disorder, perhaps?) that lead to the rise and fall of Joseph Smith, not any divine mandate from God.

Chapter 1: The Joseph Smith Family
Bushman spends this chapter laying the groundwork for Joseph's upbringing. Frankly, I think he does an admirable job of demonstrating just how "prepared" Joseph was to establish a new religion. There are a couple of interesting tidbits worth pointing out, but overall, this chapter is just background.

On page 9, Bushman quotes extensively from Lucy Mack Smith's memoirs in recounting the persecutions of her family (which were many). I found the following two to be especially odd:

Richard Bushman
When she saw the bodies of Hyrum and Joseph, she spontaneously asked why had God "forsaken this family."... Lucy calculated that six Smith martyrs had fallen because of persecution: Joseph Sr.; sons Don Carlos, Hyrum and Samuel; William's wife Caroline; and Joseph the Prophet.

I won't quibble over the possibility that God would be so brutal to the family he chose to restore the gospel in this dispensation, but doesn't it strike you as cruel to ask the Smith's to perform this work, and then reward them thusly? I know, I know—their reward is eternal in the kingdom of the Father. But is it really necessary for God to beat the tar out of everyone he loves, and who gives their all to him? Abraham; Moses; Jesus; the Apostles; and Joseph and his family? This is kind of a wacky God, not unlike Zeus and other vengeful gods... It would seem reasonable that if faith in God is supposed to bring happiness, then surely those with the MOST faith would be the happiest, but six martyrs in one family, all for the sake of God? How much happiness is that?

Then there's this:

Richard Bushman
Lucy's pride arose from the way her family met adversity. Joseph and Hyrum lay in triumph in their coffins because justice and charity gave them power over their enemies. She honored those who overcame.

Talk about black being called white, and vice versa. They were murdered, and thus they won? Justice and charity are such great commodities that they get you shot in jail? How can smart people believe this? Just exactly what was overcome? It seems to me that Joseph lost his life, and his people were driven out of their homes. Sure, their church survived...but so has Judaism survived for longer under harsher circumstances. This whitewash of tragedy, casting it as the final triumph is nothing but abject denial of the blatantly obvious. Sorry, but it's just not inspiring to me.

The next several pages recount the religious quests of great-grandparents, grandparents and parents of Joseph Smith. It is clear from their own lives that this was a family in a state of religious unrest. Here are a couple of quotes from the book along these lines:

Richard Bushman
Depressed and restless, Lucy sought comfort in religion: "I determined to obtain that which I had heard spoken of so much from the pulpit—a change of heart." She gave herself to Bible reading and prayer but stumbled over one obstacle. "If I remain a member of no church, all religious people will say I am of the world; and if I join some one of the different denominations, all the rest will say I am in error. No church will admit that I am right, except the one with which I am associated."

Does this sound like her son? Which restlessness came first, hers, or her son's?

Richard Bushman
Her [Lucy's] own quest for peace of mind and a church had not slackened since girlhood, and her husband's refusal to become involved troubled her.
Clearly this was a family that was distressed by the religious division of the day. The evangelical churches and the Universalists were greatly at odds, while reason and faith fought daily in the Smith family.

Richard Bushman
Lucy's personal concern in 1803 connected her with a vast movement, one that would course in great waves through the entire nineteenth century; to this day it has not spent itself completely.

Many churches were spawned as a result, and several succeeded in sticking around...including Mormonism.

Richard Bushman
Lucy recovered her health, but her mind still was "considerably disquieted" and "wholly occupied upon the subject of religion."

Someone obsessed with religion is likely to pass the obsession on to at least some of her children, eh?

Richard Bushman
She concluded "that there was not then upon the earth the religion" she sought. She resigned herself to Bible reading and self-instruction.

And thus it came to pass that it leaveth little doubt as to where the "uneducated" Joseph Smith could possibly have become so familiar with the Christian issues of the day, or learned to speak "Biblease" with such fluency as to be able to invent his own scripture in the same voice, thus sayeth the Lord God of Hosts.

Richard Bushman
Joseph Sr. "became much excited upon the subject of religion." What he could not embrace was the institutional religion of his time.

Richard Bushman
Without the help of minister or church, William [Smith] later remembered, Lucy made "use of every means which her parental love could suggest, to get us engaged in seeking for our soul's salvation."

At this point, it should be increasingly obvious that the Smith family as a whole was interested in religion, and that the subject occupied their time and attention, but they were of the mindset that nothing on earth was correct. Joseph would have learned this from the day he was born, and grew up immersed in this mindset. Is it any wonder that the first words God allegedly muttered to him were, "none of these churches are true"?

And that sets up one of the first ideas that Bushman tentatively suggests (though not without qualification) that I personally agree with:

Richard Bushman
Orthodoxy seemed inaccessible, inanimate and hostile, but the distance between the Smiths and the churches did not harden their hearts. They were anguished souls, starved for religion. If there was a personal motive for Joseph Smith Jr.'s revelations, it was to satisfy his family's religious want and, above all, to meet the need of his oft-defeated, unmoored father. [Emphasis added]

Even given the qualification Bushman assumes with the word "If", still, he opens the door to the possibility that Smith was simply responding to the spiritual needs of his entire family, especially his father, but not least of all himself.


Chapter Two: The First Visions (First Installment)
I'm assuming I'm going to have more to say on this chapter, but I just finished the first part, which deals with the First Vision.

One word: Whitewash!

Here's a brief quote to demonstrate how Bushman handles the delicate issue of the varieties of accounts of the First Vision:

Richard Bushman
As Joseph became more confident, more details came out.

That sums up his appraisal. Here's a few more just to really paint the picture for you that he's gonna blow right past this important controversy.

Richard Bushman
The vision is called The First Vision because it began a series of revelations. But at the time, Joseph did not know this was the First Vision. Like anyone, he understood the experience in terms of the familiar.

Okay, hold the phone right there. In "terms of the familiar?" We're talking about the very appearance of God the father and his Son Jesus Christ, in person, talking to you, and giving you instruction, and he's gonna understand it "in terms of the familiar?" I don't know about you, but I think that's ludicrous! There's not ONE THING FAMILIAR about a visitation from God!!! I can't even BEGIN to harbor a FRACTION of an INKLING that it would be REMOTELY POSSIBLE to have an encounter with GOD and JESUS CHRIST and NOT know EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON!!! Otherwise, how smart is GOD, if He can't be a little clearer? If it’s “familiar”, then it’s not a revelation…it’s a hallucination.

No, this is clearly Bushman setting the groundwork for allowing Joseph Smith license to adjust his first vision story to suit his needs later. Nothing more.

Richard Bushman
But twelve years after the event, the First Vision's personal significance for him still overshadowed its place in the divine plan for restoring a church. He explained the vision as he must have first understood it, as a personal conversion.... It was the message of forgiveness and personal redemption he wanted to hear....Like countless other revival subjects who felt forgiven, Joseph said his "soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me."

That's all it was, ladies and gentlemen. He had a spiritual witness that God loved him. How many bazillions of Christians have claimed the same thing? But, okay, he also claimed to have seen God. So what think ye of this?

Richard Bushman
Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story but because of its familiarity. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions. (Emphasis added)

Catch that? There was nothing unusual about Joseph's claim, and the preacher felt obliged to disabuse him of his hallucination! Too many times had he and other preachers heard the same, tired old stories from wild-eyed visionaries who got all spun up in the religious furor of a revival!

Bushman, of course, sides with Joseph Smith on this, assuming the preacher (and every other preacher) to be too consumed in a church that "draws near to Me with their lips, but far from Me with their hearts." Okay, maybe. But maybe he is once again the narcissist that assumes everyone else is crazy, but not him. There is no evidence to suggest that Joseph had a unique experience, other than his own final account (written over a decade later), and every evidence to suggest that he turned the experience into something completely different to suit his needs later. (By the way, I thought it very 'unscholarly' for Bushman to rely on the authorized version of the First Vision at times in this discussion, because I think it's clear to everyone who has ever looked into the matter that the final version was a carefully crafted statement with an agenda to persuade. Therefore it is hardly a reliable historical document.)

Here's one final tidbit before I sum up.

Richard Bushman
When Joseph came to, he found himself lying on his back. Returning to the house, he spoke to his mother but said almost nothing about the vision. When she asked about his apparent weakness, Joseph said, "Never mind all is well.—I am well enough off." All he would report was that he learned for himself that Presbyterianism was not true. His refusal to say more may have been the natural reticence of a teenage boy keeping his own counsel, or he may have held back for fear of ridicule. Two or three years later when he angel appeared to him, he again said nothing until explicitly commanded to speak to his father. As late as 1831, he was slow to say much about Moroni. He was not interested in notoriety.

Just in case, let me repeat that last sentence: "He was not interested in notoriety." Can Bushman actually say that with a straight face? Seldom in the history of mankind has there been a man more interested in notoriety than Joseph Smith!

But more importantly, it is clear from the above quote that Bushman cannot even consider the possibility that Joseph didn't talk about it much because perhaps it didn’t happen the way he said it did 13 years later! He can only consider that either he was just a quiet teenager, or maybe an insecure one, but he never questions the possibility that Joseph's experience was nothing more than each and every one of us have had at one time or another when we felt we knew for sure that God loved us, or the gospel was true, or that we should marry so-and-so...we've all prayed, and at one time or another been convinced God had spoken to us in some form or fashion. Why can't Bushman offer as one plausible explanation for Joseph's behavior the possibility that his experience was far less amazing, far less supernatural, and only turned into that many years later as a means for serving his own purposes? Frankly, applying Occam's razor again and assuming supernatural explanations are not rational, then it makes infinitely more sense that Joseph had a normal, boyish spiritual experience and then modified it to suit his needs, than it is to think God and Jesus actually appeared to the boy. Once again, Bushman has demonstrated that he "cannot countenance evidence" that Joseph's inspiration was perhaps not divine.

So here's the bottom line with Bushman's treatment of the First Vision. First, it is great that the church is willing to admit that the First Vision evolved over time, and that the first time it was written down it in no way resembled the final, authorized version. Fine. Appreciate that.

But what Bushman wants the reader to swallow is that Joseph simply "understood" the vision at deeper and deeper levels as he grew in his prophetic calling. At first he thought it was about his personal redemption, but later he realized that God was really telling him that none of the other churches were true, and that he shouldn't join any of them. In Bushman's worldview, Joseph's understanding just evolved with his growing prophetic power.

That completely ignores the fact that details of each vision description are uniquely different in each account, and that they cannot be rationally unified. He just glosses over it with his "Theory of Evolving Prophet" (hence the "Rough Stone Rolling" metaphor), and blows right past what, to me, is obvious: Joseph turned an otherwise common and mundane spiritual experience into a powerful vision to suit his purposes, and the reason he didn't talk about it earlier, or write about it earlier, was because he hadn't conceived it yet. He didn't yet realize the potential power amongst his potential converts. Once he did, he carefully crafted a story that bore no resemblance whatsoever to the original experience, and then labeled it as historical fact. It evolved, growing like a snowball, rather than refined and polished like a gemstone that gets the “rough edges” knocked off.

Perhaps the better title for this book would have been, “Snowball Rolling.” Snowballs grow as they roll, adding to themselves as they roll, which is how I perceive Joseph Smith.

I've done that myself, by the way. In the heart of my Mormon days, I was quite capable of turning a fairly mundane experience into a powerful spiritual experience with real teaching significance. Not because it factually happened that way, but because I chose to interpret it that way, and embellished it to draw out the messages that I wanted to communicate...including the message that "I'm acceptable to God."

So...the first opportunity Bushman had to really redeem the church's unwillingness to address hard issues, he failed. Well, he failed from my perspective. He may have been very, very successful from the perspective of the faithful. He's crafted verbiage that admits there were differences, without allowing for the possibility that it was anything other than exactly what God had in mind. I guess that is success for the church...


Chapter Two: The First Visions (Second Installment)
By now, there are some critical omissions that are starting to bug me. First and foremost is the fact that Joseph Jr. joined the Methodist Church between the time of the First Vision and the time he established the church (1828 according to the records of the church he joined, or tried to). Bushman only suggests that Joseph stayed away from the churches, which is patently not true.

Further, when Moroni describes the Urim and Thummim to Joseph, Bushman has carefully protected the reader from knowledge of Joseph's familiarity with magic "seer stones." In fact, by the time Joseph records Moroni's message, he is intimately familiar with seer stones, but the reader is left to assume that this is just a marvelous and anachronistic relic of a bygone era which God uses to bring to pass marvelous works.

In fact, this is what is most disturbing to me about the rest of this chapter. It does in fact deal with Joseph's treasure digging, but it always makes it sound as if he's this reluctant visionary who is drug around by his father and his associates against his will. Bah. If he didn't want to participate, he didn't have to pretend to see anything (and anyone who doesn't believe he was pretending would no doubt be willing to consider a great deal I have on some ocean front property in Arizona...) No, Joseph was known to be quite a showman, helping everyone to lay out the magic circles, driving in a knife at the right place, and then groaning over the evil spirits who kept moving the chest of gold "just out of reach" of the diggers. Hardly sounds like a man who doesn't want to participate.

Another little tidbit that Bushman just fails to mention is that when Joseph tried to obtain the plates the first time and was "shocked" and rebuked by the angel, that the angel initially appeared in the form of a white toad in the box, only transforming into the angel when Joseph's devious mind apparently forgot what Moroni told him only hours earlier: You don't get to cash in on the gold, Joseph! This is the account that lead Mark Hoffman to invent the famed "White Salamander letter." The reason the church was interested in obtaining such a letter was because they knew such an account was plausible, and that it could just as easily have been a salamander since it was "amphibians" that had magical powers (they were creatures of both the water and the land).

Here are a couple of quotes that I think are important from this part of the chapter:

Richard Bushman
Buried treasure was tied into a great stock of magical practices extending back many centuries. Eighteenth-century rationalism had failed to stamp out belief in preternatural powers aiding and opposing human enterprise.

It's interesting to me that Bushman can just scoff at residual belief in magical powers, but admire the people, the same people, for their identical belief in visions, inspired dreams, revelations, and prophecies. He does acknowledge it to a degree, but manages to keep it separate:

Richard Bushman
Christian belief in angels and devils blended with belief in guardian spirits and magical powers.

He sees that the two were co-mingled, but seems just fine that out of that came Joseph Smith, who was actually prepared for his angelic visits because his mind was open to the magical worldview:

Richard Bushman
The visit of the angel and the discovery of the gold plates would have confirmed the belief in supernatural powers. For the people in a magical frame of mind, Moroni sounded like one of the spirits who stood guard over treasure in the tales of treasure-seeking.

Here's where Bushman's faith colors his interpretation too much. He cannot suppose that Joseph's prior experience with magic and treasure seeking simply served as a template for the story he later told about Moroni. He can only assume that Joseph's mind was prepared to accept such things, as was his family, because of their prior experience as treasure diggers. What is odd about this is the unstated supposition that God prepared them thusly...using falsehoods, because I don't think there is a person in the modern church who would believe the magic used to dig for buried treasure was valid, yet apparently that's what God used to prep the brain of ole' Joe.

You think I'm kidding? Try this lovely quote from page 54:

Richard Bushman
When he married Emma Hale in 1827, Joseph was on the eve of realizing himself as a prophet. He may still have been involved in magic, but he was sincere when he told Emma's father that his treasure-seeking days were over. Magic had served its purpose in his life. In a sense, it was a preparatory gospel. Treasure seeking may have made it easier for his father to believe his son's fabulous story about an angel and gold plates.

Did you catch that? Bushman is suggesting that Joseph's involvement in treasure digging with peep stones in a hat, deceiving people into believing he could see buried treasure despite the fact that none was ever produced, was a "preparatory gospel!" Good grief! Do people realize what this man is suggesting? That God, because he's not quite omnipotent, had to "prepare" the Smith's with a falsehood, a lying practice, in order for them to believe? Are we to assume that without this "preparatory gospel," that Joseph wouldn't have actually believed what he was seeing when God appeared to him in the flesh and spoke to him?

Hello?

::tap tap::

Is this thing on? Does everyone understand what this guy is saying? This is nothing short of stunning to me!

Sigh...

One last thought along the lines of a "rough stone rolling." At the bottom of page 54, Bushman says:

Richard Bushman
The danger of treating the plates as treasure was underscored time after time. By 1826, even Joseph Sr. had come around to a more biblical conception of Joseph's mission. The plates were seen less and less as a treasure and more as a religious history, preparing Joseph to conceive of himself as a translator and a prophet.

First of all, think about what he's saying. Joseph Sr. can't seem to get it through his thick skull that the plates aren't a treasure--they're a book. Despite the fact that an angel of God practically killed his son over this very issue, still, it takes years for Joseph Sr. to come around to this idea. Why?

Well, duh! There weren't any plates in the first place! Joseph Sr. would surely have been immediately on board if there was any real confidence in the story beyond his own magical worldview. Besides, after four years of never seeing the damn things, he probably came to an awareness that he wasn't going to see them, and after a while, it began to dawn on him and everyone else that the REAL treasure lay in the story that Joseph was compiling, not in the mysterious and elusive gold plates themselves that probably people realized were more "magical" than real anyway. There was opportunity in that story, an opportunity that would provide the nice things in life (for a time) for Joseph's family in a way that no other "treasure" ever "almost dug up, but not quite" ever would or could. The story became the bridge between the magical fantasy and a treasure realized at last. And that’s why the whole Smith family was on board.

But Bushman wants us to believe that this is the "rough stone rolling," in that it took time for Joseph to overcome his desire to melt those suckers down for bullion and sell 'em off for cash. Are you serious? How confident could he possibly be in the angelic warnings if it takes four years to come to that conclusion? Not very, I'm guessing.

See, at the end of the day, it is apparent to me that the story of the gold plates was an evolution from Joseph's magic worldview and his days as a treasure seeker. He was seeking gold, and he "found it," but not the kind of gold that anyone could actually see. Oh, no. This was gold only he could see, but in order to have some kind of credibility, he had to have evidence, and the evidence he produced was the Book of Mormon. No one ever saw the plates, my friends. No one. Not Emma, not Oliver, not Martin, not David, not any of the eleven witnesses.

The whole story was founded from the beginning in the Smith family's understanding and appreciation for magic. It is part and parcel the same story, and the fact that Bushman has the audacity to call it a "preparatory gospel" just galls me.


Chapter 3: Translation (First Installment)
I’m struck again at how this “definitive biography” presumes faith in Joseph’s divine calling. Nevertheless, there are some interesting items that are brought out that might be disturbing for some people. Naturally, they are explained away as if they are trivial…

The chapter heading is a quote from Emma after she had re-married, and it includes her well-known description of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon, “sitting with his face buried in a hat, with the stone in it and dictating hour after hour, with nothing between us. He had neither mss [manuscript?] or book to read from.” That might be a tad disturbing for many of the faithful who still imagine Joseph and Oliver sitting at the table, Joseph with his finger on the plates virtually “reading” the characters aloud to Oliver, who faithfully wrote what was read. At this point, I haven’t read anywhere where Bushman either disputes or discusses this claim of translating in the hat. He sort of just lets it squat there on the table without really talking about it. [After note: He does address it later in the book.]

But I think there are some very telling bits of information in the tale Bushman tells. For instance, apparently the night that Joseph left to get the plates, he thought to ask his mother for a locking wooden chest to store them in. He woke her up at just before Midnight, and much to his dismay, she didn’t have one.

Hello? He had four years to prepare for this day, why does it not cross his mind that he needs to keep the plates hidden until midnight just before he leaves? Granted, it’s possible that it just slipped his mind until that point, but there’s a lot of “mind slippage” that goes on in this tale, and all of it strengthens my assertion that the entire story was a fabrication.

For instance, it apparently “slipped” God’s mind that Alvin wasn’t going to be alive when Joseph finally got the plates, and despite the fact that the angel had commanded Joseph that Alvin’s presence was the key to recovering the record, now there had to be a change of plans, and EMMA was the new key. Oops…God should really be a little more careful about those kinds of details.

It also just “slipped” Martin Harris’ mind that he wasn’t supposed to show the manuscript to any but his wife and four others. Oops! He showed them to everyone who came over! “Eh…God won’t mind. Sure, he commanded me, but what the hell.” In the process, keeping those pages safe just sort of “slipped” his mind, too. Furthermore, Joseph got distracted with the birth and immediate death of their first child and Emma’s dangerously poor health as a result, and the whole “God’s new record” just sort of “slipped” his mind for several months. Is this really even possible? I mean, if you really believed this work was of God, and that you, of all human beings on the planet, were being asked by God Omnipotent to do this whole little translating thing, do you really think it’s possible there would be so much carelessness and forgetfulness? It seems ludicrous to me. Not impossible, but ludicrous.

“Yo, God! Look after Emma while I go gather up those 116 pages!” “No problem, Joe. I got’cher back!” God seriously needs some help here…

There are also some other telling anecdotes. For instance, we’re all familiar with the tale of Joseph running heroically through the woods with 50-150 pounds of gold wrapped in cloth (making it that much more awkward) while being bonked on the head by bad guys. (They’re all armed, they brought their guns, why do they just hit him with them instead of shoot him with them?) We already realize that this is a tale that must have been Joseph’s hero identity manifesting itself. But there is something else he lets slip in his tale that I think is telling. You know how jokes always have things either happening three times, or to three different people? “There was a blonde, a brunette, and a redhead.” Well, three happens to be a number with magical portent. Remember Aladdin’s three wishes? Exactly. Well, in Joseph’s hero story of running through the woods, he is attacked three times before he attains his goal (home). Coincidence? Perhaps. But then, remember that he also had to pester God three times before he could obtain Martin’s goal of allowing him to take the 116 pages of manuscript home to show his wife. And that three different people transcribed for him (Emma, Martin and Oliver) before he reached his goal of publishing the BOM. And that he had to have three witnesses before he obtained his goal of credibility. Now, I realize that it’s easy to see patterns where they don’t really exist. Still, the stories of running through the woods, and pestering God about the 116 pages, are told in the same, tired old format of so many simple stories and jokes that it causes me to be highly suspicious…

This quote was also stunning to me, when I consider that God managed somehow to keep the record safe for nearly 2000 years before he unloaded it on the goof ball Joseph Smith:

Richard Bushman
Lucy Smith said the angel warned Joseph as the record was turned over to him that “wicked men” would “lay every plan and scheme that is possible to get it away from you, and if you do not take heed continually, they will succeed.” (Emphasis added)

The reason this is stunning is that it is this kind of logic early in the church that sets up the notion that God is utterly dependent on the Mormons to get His work accomplished. He is omnipotent, and yet he has to rely on Joe Smith, uneducated farm-boy from Vermont to keep the work moving along. Perhaps God chose Joseph not for his prophetic abilities, but his prowess as a wrestler?

One of the other things that struck me in this chapter is the doggedness with which the other money-diggers pursued the plates. They were downright belligerent about it, willing to trespass, steal and destroy property in the process, Willard Chase leading the pack (recall that the Smiths and the Chases had worked together on a number of magical occasions, and Joseph obtained his first seer stone when he borrowed Sally Chase's “green glass” to find it, and his second one digging a well for the Chases.) Now let’s think about this for a moment. Why would it be reasonable to assume that these were just “wicked people” trying to steal from Joseph what was rightfully his? Unless…he had promised them all along that they were part of the operation. In fact, David Whitmer recalled that he had met a group of incensed young men in Palmyra who claimed that before Joseph got the plates, “he had promised to share with them.” (Page 61) Why? Well, if you were familiar with the magic of the treasure diggers, you would recall that it often required lots of people to pull off a “successful dig,” (which is all the more ironic that they never actually pulled one off). To me, it only makes sense that the other diggers were as audacious as they were because they felt genuinely cheated. Here they had all been working together, almost getting rich a handful of times (except those darn evil spirits kept moving the treasure around…) , and suddenly, Joseph claims he finally found some gold, and he cuts them clean out of the deal. They would only have felt cheated if they had been involved from the outset. I contend that it was all part of the same magical shenanigans, but at some point, Joseph had a plan for the “mysterious plates,” and he had to “have them”—but he couldn’t let anyone else in on it, or they’d know that he didn’t really have them. So he finished the job of obtaining the plates by himself, (allegedly), and left the rest of the company with nothing. And they were understandably angry.

Also note that the Smiths never felt inclined to defend their property, nor get the law involved. It's as if they "understood" that anger of the other money-diggers, and just spent their time trying to stay one step ahead of them rather than seek justice or the support of the law. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Now, I’m just flat-out speculating about that, just trying to figure out one way to fit the pieces together. But it is clear to me that there is a valuable piece of the puzzle missing in Joseph’s story when I analyze the belligerence of the money-diggers. More than that, it is evidence that at first, Joseph had conceived of the plates as nothing but treasure, only contriving the “spiritual treasure” story later. Once he made that leap, the rest of the money-digging company was a hindrance, not a help.

Bushman and other apologists often point to the chastisement of Joseph Smith after the “lost 116 pages” fiasco as evidence that Joseph was humble, and certainly he wouldn’t “invent” a revelation that makes him look bad. After all, you look at other examples of “wicked” leaders, and they are only ever condemning of their people, not of themselves. I believe, and this is my opinion, that Joseph was good with “sleight of hand” distraction, keeping the focus shifting around enough to make it appear as though he is “humbled by the Lord,” when in fact he’s using his own self-deprecation to make himself actually stronger.

Here is a great example of that “sleight of hand” ability I’m talking about:

Richard Bushman
Alerted to an approaching danger, [by the seer stone in his pocket] Joseph took up the hearthstones in the west room and buried the box of plates there. They had scarcely replaced the stones when a collection of armed men rushed up to the house. Thinking quickly, [always the hero] Joseph threw open the doors, yelled loudly, and all the men in the house, including eleven-year-old Carlos, ran out in a fury. Surprised and disorganized, the mob fell back, ran for the woods, and disappeared.

Shift the focus, break the train of thought, keep the “mob” from reaching their objective. Works great.

But here’s the “chastisement,” which I find equally telling: “Remember God is merciful: Therefore, repent of that which thou hast done, and he will only cause thee to be afflicted for a season, and thou are still chosen, and wilt again be called to the work.”

Sure, Joseph allows himself to take a few hand slaps, but God is first and foremost telling Joseph (and everyone else) that Joe is “still chosen.” The favored of God. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Lastly (up to this point), I close with this quote, reiterating an important piece of “spin” that Bushman is determined to drive home:

Richard Bushman
After 1828, Joseph could no longer see that magic might have prepared him to believe in a revelation of gold plates and translation with a stone. It did not occur to him that without magic his family might have scoffed at his story of Moroni, as did the minister who rejected the First Vision. Magic had played its part and now could be cast aside.

If you didn’t catch that, read it again, as I think this is the first truly significant piece of spin Bushman is introducing to the membership of the Church: Joseph Smith and his family practiced magic so that they would be prepared to accept the miraculous aspects of the unfolding story, including angels, seer stones, and gold plates!

Excuse me, but couldn’t God have come up with a better system for accomplishing this goal than using the deceptive practices of folk magic? If he needed Joseph’s family to believe, couldn’t he have called a family meeting and appeared to all of them? Couldn’t he have calmed their doubts as he did with Joseph of Nazareth when he learned that God had knocked up his espoused wife? In my mind, and it is admittedly just my opinion, this is utter nonsense. And yet, you mark my words, this will be the way church members deal with the issue of Joseph’s magic days.

“Yes brother and/or sister so-and-so, we know all about Joseph’s magic days. That magic was a preparatory gospel, paving the way for Joseph to convince his family that magic stones, buried treasure, and ancient spirits revealing their whereabouts are for real. Thank goodness for the foresight of God to prepare the way for the gospel to come forth!”

Whatever…

Chapter 3: Translation (Continued)
I have to start out with this quote from page 69 under the Oliver Cowdery heading, because it is SO telling:

Richard Bushman
Sometime in this dark period [after Martin Harris misplaced the 116 pages], Joseph attended Methodist meetings with Emma, probably to placate her family.

That's why it's dangerous for someone like Bushman to be credited for writing the "definitive biography" of Joseph Smith—he simply cannot countenance the possibility that Smith was anything than what he said he was, and inserts little "interpretations" like "probably to placate her family" in an effort to keep Joseph as the good guy.

But why is it so impossible that Joseph might have toyed at this point with giving the whole thing up? After all, the 116 pages were gone, he labored for months, his family was hungry, his reputation was questionable, and Emma wanted to go to the Methodists. Recall, however, that God commanded him not to go to any other churches, though Bushman admits that Smith "asked to be enrolled" in a Methodist class. In other words, he blatantly turned his back on God in this instance. Can you say, “Son of Perdition?” But Bushman can't handle that, and inserts the qualifier to make it all seem like he was just trying to cooperate with Emma. Like Eve of old, it is always the woman that beguiles...

Regarding the translation, Bushman is kind of interesting. He makes no bones about the fact that the plates were not technically being translated, for they were often not even in the room while Smith and Cowdery worked, and when they were, they were in a box or wrapped in a cloth. All the translation occurred with the seer stone. It is also telling, and again, Bushman just comes right out and says it, that despite Joseph's initial intrigue with the Urim and Thummim, he quickly reverted to his old seer stone in the hat, and the Urim and Thummim went unused. While Bushman acknowledges this, he doesn't in any way address the obvious contradiction here, namely that the Urim and Thummim were originally touted as superior, preserved by God for the translation of the plates, but Joseph can do better than God with his own rock.

Hello? Did anyone hear that? I'll say it louder. Joseph can do better than God with his own rock.

But now this is really interesting if you think about it: Joseph didn't need the plates to write the Book of Mormon, nor did he need the Urim and Thummim. He certainly didn't need the Liahona or the Sword of Laban. So why? Why in the world would God preserve things that nobody could look at or handle (other than with their "spiritual eyes"), and that Joseph didn't even use to write the book? What it sounds like is that God laid out this plan, but it didn't work, or wasn't necessary. That ding-dong! Why couldn't he do something useful for a change! And why can't Bushman et al countenance the possibility that the whole thing was a ruse from the beginning, and that ultimately Smith used what he knew—fabulous dictation and story-telling skills, and magic rocks in hats? Because for me, I'm thinking that anything God provides is probably superior to something I dug up while using someone else's green looking glass...but maybe that's just insecure ole' me.

Later in this chapter, Bushman falls into the same school of thought (a tired one in my opinion) that Joseph was incapable of writing the book because his neighbors described him as lazy and without intellect (the same accounts that are quickly brushed aside if they testify that the Smith family was anything but a fine, upstanding American family), and that the Book of Mormon is just too "complex" for a man without letters to accomplish. I want to grab Bushman and have him read Joseph's own mother's account regarding how he could entertain the family for hours spinning tales about the Indians that inhabited the land. And I'd like him to read all the critical reviews of the Book of Mormon that make it clear that it is hardly "complex," (I once wrote an essay in response to this claim of complexity, which I'll try to dredge up and post). In fact, it is linear, dull and with characters who are so exaggerated as to suggest that they (the heroes and the villains both) were the product of a childish imagination, and not a skilled writer. I flat out challenge the notion that the book is complex.
That doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate that it was a remarkable achievement. I cannot imagine myself having the mental capacity to dictate a reasonably coherent story with my face in a hat for hours on end. I’m just saying it isn’t a complex story, and that fact has to be appreciated when you consider the possibility that Joseph really might have just rattled that story off the top of his head. Less complex, easier to accomplish.

One of the themes that Bushman begins to build at this point in the book, and which he develops further in later chapters, is that God was quick to correct Joseph as well as others, and that unlike other "false" prophets who simply whack their followers over the head with a guilt stick, Joseph gets whacked a time or two himself. But what Bushman fails to acknowledge is that in every instance, Smith is always reminded that he is "chosen" or "elect" and "that no man save him" could accomplish this "marvelous work and wonder." In other words, Bushman fails to recognize a false humility in Smith's writings, which are actually exceedingly narcissistic. In fact, the one word that appears in the margins of my book thus far more than any other is "narcissism" because there is account after account in which Bushman claims humility and I see self-adulation.

Moving along, here’s a little "spin" for you:

Richard Bushman
Critics pointed out how many of the witnesses were members of the Smith and Whitmer families, implying they signed out of loyalty or from a self-serving motive. Others have suggested the imagined scene was viewed only through "spiritual eyes," or that Joseph pressured the witnesses into thinking they saw an angel and the plates.

As I recall, those "others" who suggested they saw with their "spiritual eyes" were not critics—they were witnesses, but Bushman walks away from that completely, leaving the reader to assume that this is merely speculative and proffered by anti-Mormons with an agenda. Not so, and if I wasn't such a lazy son-of-a-gun, I'd go look it up.

I'll wrap up this chapter with a Bushman quote that is one of many that I personally believe is naïve at best and a lie at worst:

Richard Bushman
It [the Book of Mormon] was an unusually spare production, wholly lacking in signs of self-promotion.

Except for the times in which the Book either makes reference to other "translators", such as King Mosiah (who was both a king and a prophet, possessing the same gift Joseph claimed), or specifically in which it refers to the book coming to light in the end times to "Joseph, son of Joseph," a clear self-affirming reference. Now, it's true that the book could have done otherwise and prophesied at length about Smith as it did about Christ, but the simple fact of the matter is, Bushman is wrong when he denies that is in any way self-promoting.


Chapter 4: A New Bible
The primary point of interest for me in this particular chapter is the developing apologetic tone of Bushman. This chapter uses all kinds of pseudo-academic fluff 'n stuff to make it sound like the Book of Mormon is a serious academic pursuit, when in fact the logic that he uses to support that notion is typically flawed and circular. But to start off this particular discussion, here's a quote from page 93 that ought to make your blood boil, especially considering how very intelligent and informed so many of you are!

Richard Bushman
With so much at stake, the proponents [of the Book of Mormon] are as energetic and ingenious as the critics in mustering support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. On the whole better trained, with more technical language skills than their opponents, they are located mainly at Brigham Young University and associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS).

:: pauses to allow readers to pick themselves off the floor or peal themselves off the ceiling ::

Anybody else want to ask the question? Okay, I will: Better trained in what?!! Oh, right...better trained in proving the historicity of the Book of Mormon. No other serious scholar in the world even bothers to get too well trained in the historical significance of the Book of Mormon (beyond it being a 19th century religious text and its associated cultural influence). However, the people doing the research that inadvertently also disproves the historicity of the Book of Mormon are hardly poorly trained! For instance, all the folks doing work on the DNA studies, or the people doing Mesoamerican archeology, or paleontology, or linguistics, or religious influences among Native Americans from the Yukon to the tip of Chile. This vast, carefully scrutinized, scientifically supported body of research, enough to fill libraries, finds no room for a historical Book of Mormon. None. And so it galls me that Bushman has the audacity to suggest that the FARMS folks are "better trained." As a scientist, I am appalled at the application of the scientific method that FARMS implements. Namely:

1) Begin with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is.

2) Search for anything and everything that supports that conclusion.

3) Throw away anything and everything that doesn't support that conclusion.

4) Thereby prove that the Book of Mormon is true.

Whatever…

In light of this discussion, Bushman is clearly a proponent of the Limited Geography Theory proposed by FARMS:

Richard Bushman
One of the most interesting turns in recent Mormon argumentation is a revised conception of the extent of Book of Mormon lands. Early readers [and prophets and apostles...ahem] assumed the Book of Mormon people ranged up and down North and South America from upstate New York to Chile. A close reading of the text reveals it cannot sustain such an expansive geography.

Well DUH! But if you use the process of scholarly inquiry I outlined above, starting first and foremost with the assumption that the Book is what it says it is, than you cannot countenance the possibility that it was written by a guy with a limited sense of geography, and instead craft a new thesis that suggests that the early Church members (as well as the vast majority today) simply didn't recognize the reality of limited geography, instead assuming too much. Of course, it didn't help that Joseph Smith himself, prophet, seer, revelator and translator of the Book was the chief proponent of the extensive geography thesis...

Anyway, Bushman makes it clear that limited geography is THE solution, and that of course (you silly scholars) there were people who crossed over the Bering Straights, and of course there were many, many others in the land besides the Nephites and Lamanites, and that when Joseph Smith talked about the "Lamanites" to which he sent Oliver Cowdery to Missouri to proselytize, he didn't really mean "Lamanites," per se, he just meant...well...he must have misunderstood, that's all. Never mind that he sent Cowdery to the Lamanites by revelation. Allow me to quote from the Introduction in the Book of Mormon: “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness [sic] of the everlasting gospel…After thousands of years, all [Nephites and Jaredites] were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” (Emphasis added)

Apparently God is not familiar with the limited geography theory, either. He should study more.

Speaking of Lamanites, here's an interesting and very incorrect quote from Bushman:

Richard Bushman
In this post-Indian environment, the Smiths exhibited no particular interest in the original occupants of the land until Joseph got involved with the gold plates.

In Lucy Mack Smith's book, she makes it abundantly clear that Joseph would often entertain them for hours spinning tales of the native people of their land, talking about their warfare, their customs, their clothing, their money, etc. In fact, there was a great deal of interest concerning the Native Americans, not the least of which was the theory that they were of the lost 10 tribes of Israel.

And speaking of the theory of Hebrew descent for Indians, Bushman makes the following observation relative to Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews when compared to the Book of Mormon.

Richard Bushman
Both books speak of migrations from Palestine to America and of a great civilization now lost; both describe a division that pitted a civilized against a savage branch with the higher civilization falling to the lower; both books elicit sympathy for a chosen people fallen into decay. Even though Joseph Smith is not known to have seen View of the Hebrews until later in his life, the parallels seem strong enough for critics to argue that Ethan Smith provided the seeds for Joseph Smith's later composition. [So far so good...quite a revelation for many Mormons, no doubt.]

But for readers of Ethan Smith, the Book of Mormon was a disappointment. It was not the treatise about the origins of the Indians, regardless of what early Mormons said. The Book of Mormon never used the word "Indian."

::waits patiently for forehead slapping to cease::

So there you go. The best evidence that the Book of Mormon wasn't copied from View of the Hebrews is that the Book of Mormon never, not one time, used the word Indian.

Duh! It used the word Lamanite over and over and OVER again, and the prophet who translated the damn book made the following equation very clear: Lamanite = Indian.

In other words, Bushman is simply quick to brush aside as coincidental any similarities between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews, despite the evidence that Joseph Smith, combined with Oliver Cowdery, would almost certainly have been familiar with the themes of View of the Hebrews, whether or not they ever actually read the book, in the same way I am familiar with the themes of so many Shakespearian works without having actually read more than Macbeth, and that one under protest.

To make matters worse, Bushman wants us to believe that the Book of Mormon actually overturns American racism:

Richard Bushman
In its very nature, the Book of Mormon overturns conventional American racism. The book makes Indians the founders of civilization in the New World. The master history of America's origins is not about Columbus or the Puritans but about the native peoples. History is imagined [BINGO] from the ancient inhabitants point of view. European migrants are called gentiles in the Book of Mormon and come onstage as interlopers. They appear late in the narrative and remain secondary to the end. The land belongs to the Indians.... The Book of Mormon is not just sympathetic to Indians; it grants them dominance—in history, in God's esteem, and in future ownership of the American continent.

Now, I'm not saying miracles can't happen, and I'm certainly a vocal opponent to the doctrine of manifest destiny, but I think anyone who clings to the notion that the "Redman will Rise Again!" is deceived, if not downright nuts. Of course, this isn't proof that the Book isn't true...using the famous Christian and Mormon fallback position, we can always assume they will inherit the land after the Millennium and Christ comes again. In other words, it is a purely faith-based hope, not a logically sound possibility.

On the other hand, I think it's pretty safe to say that when you call dark-skinned people "cursed of God," that's going to contribute to "conventional American racism," not overturn it. Bushman is here calling white black and black white.

Moving right along, I found this notion to be rather silly:

Richard Bushman
The world is a hive of bible-making, and in the end all these records will come together, and people will know one another through their bibles. "And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews." The Book of Mormon is but one record in a huge world archive.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence anywhere of any bible-making activity in the archeological record other than that which supports "the words of the Jews." The words of the Nephites can be found in a single record, which were produced under suspicious circumstances (angels delivering plates that no one else could see, and then taking them back again), while the Jews records pop up in lots of archeological digs, Qumran and Nag Hamadi being just two of the prominent ones. But if there was a "hive of bible-making" resulting in a "huge world archive," it is hardly unreasonable to expect to find some of that...and yet it doesn't exist. Got that? IT DOESN'T EXIST. Yet Bushman talks very enthusiastically about it as if it's just a given! Makes me want to scream!


But the best part of this section was the following quote:

Richard Bushman
If Book of Mormon reasoning holds true, America should produce its own sacred text. Thus the way is paved for Joseph Smith.

That is circular logic at its best, couched in terms that make it sound so scholarly. Let me interpret for you: "If Joseph Smith was right, then Joseph Smith was right."

Well now! That changes everything for me! I will probably head back to church on that stunning bit of reasoning!

Last thought.

Bushman makes a fatal logic error in the following, and then expands that error greatly:

Richard Bushman
Embedding America in the Bible necessarily hallowed the nation, but the Book of Mormon also created a subversive competitor to the standard national history.

Any respect I may have started with is waning at this point. The "nation" was not hallowed...the land was hallowed! The United States of America is not what the Book of Mormon was about, and Bushman makes a critical error in confusing the two. He expands on that error here:

Richard Bushman
But the American story does not control the narrative. The Book of Mormon allots just nine verses to the deliverance of the Gentiles, and the rest of the book concentrates on the deliverance of Israel. The impending American republic is barely visible. Even at points where it should have been foreshadowed, such as the passages on government, republican principles are not sketched in.

"SHOULD" have been foreshadowed? See, what Bushman is doing is setting up the argument that IF Joseph Smith was just producing a book about what he knew, it SHOULD have been about American Republicanism. But all this really says is that Bushman apparently lacks the childish imagination that often accompanies the fantasies of kingdoms and kings...replete in the Book of Mormon.

Tragically, at this point Bushman points out that unlike American republicanism, the Book of Mormon goes from Monarchs to Judges. What a novel concept! Except that's exactly what happens in the Old Testament. The narrative isn't American; it's borrowed straight from the Bible, the other story Smith was familiar with, and could draw upon in his account.

Finally, he says:

Richard Bushman
The Book of Mormon does not plant the seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation. Instead of tracking the history of liberty, as a nationalist work might be expected to do, the Book of Mormon endlessly expounds the master biblical narrative—the history of Israel. (Emphasis added)

Bushman is essentially falling into the logic trap that, "If the book is not predictable, then it must be true." Yet it is nothing less than an academic "wish" that the book even ever was history in the first place, let alone predictable in that historical pursuit. Instead, why isn't it possible that Joseph just made up a narrative based on his understanding and familiarity with the Bible, and his heroic imagination? While it might buffalo the masses when he goes off on tangents about what you might "expect a nationalist work to say and do," the truth is, it was never intended to be a nationalist work, and to wander down that path for the sake of scholarly appearances is really nothing but hot air without any real substance, shifting the focus from the real issues. It is like angel-food cake...sweet, but in the end, little more than air and wholly without actual nutrition. I am woefully unimpressed...

Addendum to Chapter 4: A New Bible
One of the things I forgot I wanted to address in Chapter 4 is introduced neatly in the following quote:

Richard Bushman
The manifest message of the Book of Mormon is Christ's atonement for the world's sins. The Christian gospel overwhelms everything else—Indian origins, race, the Bible, America. No reader could miss the Christian themes.

Bushman is setting up the argument in Chapter 6 (Moses and Enoch) that the overtly Christian themes were part of what was removed from the Bible by wicked men in the centuries prior to Joseph's restoration.

It is terribly ironic to me that Joseph was all about the Jews, their "words", the restoration of Israel, blah, blah, blah, and yet he completely negates everything Jewish by insisting that Abraham, Moses and Enoch were Christians, not Jews.

Beyond that, though, I think it speaks to Joseph's naiveté that he has prophets of the Book of Mormon proclaim such overtly Christian themes hundreds of years before Christ, when the best that the Bible can do is make a vague mention about a king born of a virgin that the later Christians co-opted in claiming it to be a prophecy of Jesus, and which later critics have demonstrated was a generic messianic prophecy not specific to Jesus.

In my opinion, Joseph's prophets are not prophets...they are fortune-tellers, seeing into the future, such as might be possible if you happened to have, say...a seer stone. No prophet can reliably be said to "see the future," they are simply proclaimers of God's word. They speak in terms of generalities, "Repent or God will destroy you from off the face of the earth," but they can't foretell the future. Neither could Joseph, as the large catalogue of failed prophecies shows. Yet this is the operating paradigm of the treasure-seeking Joseph, who still believes in the power to see that which isn't yet or hasn't happened yet via magic; the operating paradigm by which the Book of Mormon was ultimately conceived and written. A magic worldview.

No, in my opinion—and I admit that it's possible I'm wrong—Joseph’s overtly Christian message in the Book of Mormon is actually evidence that it was made up after all the Christian themes of which we are so familiar were already developed...not before. Look at it. The Old Testament we know was written before Jesus, and it really cannot be argued to be a Christian text at all. In fact, the early Christians only included the Old Testament at all in order to create a link to the old Gods, and thus bring a sense of history to their fledgling religion. In some regards, the Old Testament was used as a counterpoint to the New Testament, to show how Christ overcame the law of the Jews and established a new law. Regardless, the Old Testament, allegedly written by Joseph's beloved Jews, a bible that was part of a "hive of bible-making in the world," failed to prophecy of Christ at all. But Joseph's bible, written 1830 years after Jesus, is able to testify of Jesus every bit as explicitly as the New Testament, even though much of it, too, was supposedly written up to 600 years before the birth of Jesus!

Well, duh! It's easy to declare prophecy after the fact. I can even do that...


Chapter 5: The Church of Christ
Notice from the title that Joseph couldn't even get the name of the church right the first time...that it, too, had to evolve to its present name...call me cynical, I know.

I mentioned in my section on Chapter 4 that one of the most popular words in the margins of my book is "narcissism." I want to address this a bit here in Chapter 5, too, as I believe that first and foremost that's the picture I'm getting of Joseph, ironically through the faithful interpretation of Bushman. So I'll start with this quote from page 111:

Richard Bushman
The Book of Mormon foreshadowed the practice [of ordaining all worthy male members to the priesthood, rather than withholding that privilege to an elect few, of course that STILL left out blacks and women, but we'll save that for later commentary]. "All their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support," Alma and Mosiah had taught. The purpose was explicitly democratic: "the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal." Joseph and Cowdery were the First and Second Elders, and soon after were designated apostles, lifting them up a level, but there were many elders, and a revelation the previous June had foreshadowed twelve apostles to appointed later. Smith and Cowdery were literally first among equals. (Emphasis added)

Double-speak, that's what that is. First, it's clear that Joseph was responding to the fact that he was a preacher (or would be), while he lacked the credentials and learning of the ordained preachers of other denominations, and he was most likely putting them in their place, stating, "you are no better than me." But since that then makes him equal to everyone else, he has to have himself designated "first" or as Bushman puts it, "lifting them up a level." So not exactly equal. They were first among equals, making them a little more equal than anyone else. Joseph's narcissism shining through.

So try this one on for size:

Richard Bushman
The most important office was the one designated for Joseph in a revelation on the day of the Church's organization: "Behold there shall be a record among you, and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet and apostle of Jesus Christ, and elder in the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." ... The revelation told the Church that "thou shalt give heed unto all his words, and commandments, which he shall give unto you, as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me." He governed through his power to speak for God.

Now, if Pat Robertson made those kinds of claims (God forbid!), Mormons would just laugh out loud. But really, how gullible can we be if the only evidence that a man "speaks FOR God" is that he himself tells us he does!!? And how convenient that Joseph provides a "revelation" from God Almighty commanding the people to "listen and obey Joseph." No wonder the poor guy ended up so drunk with power that he did some of the stupid things that got him killed.

But Bushman is convinced that not only was Joseph not looking out for his own best interests, in fact he was too humble to do so.

Richard Bushman
He [Joseph] was not the luminous figure he is sometimes made out to be. Attention focused on his gift, not his personality.... The poi