Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling

I am very grateful to Richard Bushman for this book. Writing about Joseph Smith invites a storm of criticism because skeptics only want him debunked and believers want their faith supported. Each wants their pre-conceived image of who Joseph was to be proven correct. Bushman takes a strong stance that lets the evidence we have speak for itself, preferably as close to Joseph himself and contemporary witnesses as possible, and tell the story of his life to high scholarly standards.For me the book read somewhat sparer than a biography that includes anecdotes as if they are history. Many familiar stories that I learned growing up are simply not here. However, relying as much as possible on contemporary accounts and what Joseph himself wrote or said provides a a biography more consistent in its view of Joseph than the books that either extol him or those that tend to attack him and try to debunk him. For example, the famous Brodie biography seemed to me to want Joseph to be both a genius and a dolt, a highly energetic man yet lazy, a crazed believer and a cynical con man, and on and on with similar contradictions. Bushman achieves a more consistent lens on Joseph, despite the complications of the man and his life. I think this is both a great achievement and a real help in trying to understand Joseph. I mean it as high praise for the book when I say that I think that almost everyone who reads this book thoughtfully will take away a broader and deeper conception of who Joseph Smith was and what he did.Rather than try to recount the book to you I want to share several things that I learned from the book and really value. I could list dozens more, but you can read the book for yourself (which I encourage you to do). Yes, I am a believing member of the LDS Church, but I think the book is intelligent and honest and complete enough to provide interesting and thought provoking material for both the believer and the skeptic and for someone who comes with no knowledge of Joseph at all. Believers will have to consider the complications of the man and his flesh and blood temperament and the misjudgments he made in his life about the people he trusted and some of the actions he took. Skeptics will have to deal with the reality of the man and his achievements. Simply dismissing him as a con man or a crazed visionary will not work because that is not what the actual evidence says. Joseph did not run the Church as the single central figure nor did he turn it into a cult of Joseph Smith.Bushman showed me the power and genius of the organization of the Church and its balancing mechanisms of being flat with a broadly held male priesthood with a hierarchical leadership with doctrine of keys and how the later addition of women in the operation, governing of the Church, and caring of the needs of the Saints strengthened and enriched it. And while Joseph was the President of the Church and its Prophet and Seer he really did let local leadership govern itself according to the principles taught through the revelations. I think Bushman's focus on the development of the organization and its role in preserving the Church and its ongoing growth after Joseph's murder is spot on and helped deepen my appreciation of its dynamism and adaptability.I also like the compromise language Bushman achieved in dealing with the realities of the revelations of Joseph Smith. The author always refers to them as Joseph's revelations. For believers, we accept them as revelations from God through Joseph Smith, but I can see them as "Joseph's" in that they were given through him. And skeptics who reject anything divine about the revelations can accept that, whatever they are, Joseph spoke them. I also liked learning how many of the revelations were given in the presence of others in meetings, how matter of fact they were, how they were immediately copied and circulated, and how difficult it was to get them collected and printed for a variety of reasons until we finally got them published as the Doctrine and Covenants.Another thing I gained a deeper appreciation of was the utter daring and the monumental nature of building the Kirtland Temple so early in the Church's life. Most Mormon congregations (wards) have around 500 members. Kirtland at the time they were building the temple was growing, but only had around 600 members when the project began. I can't fathom taking on such a project with so few people and for a people living in log structures and less it is even more incredible. Yet they built it in that rugged frontier town. I also thought that Bushman handled the sense of the miraculous around the dedication of the temple very sensitively. I also did not realize that when Joseph and Oliver were receiving the visitation of the Savior, Moses, Elijah, and Elias on the altar of the temple that up to 1,000 members were in the temple on the other side of the curtain.When I was growing up I did not understand clearly how early the Saints arrived in Missouri and how much larger the settlement there was than in Kirtland even though the temple in Kirtland was built and the proposed temple for Zion was not. Bushman also does a good job of giving a clear picture of the dynamics of the persecutions in Missouri and how the growing political power and anti-slavery stance of the Mormons antagonized the locals. The so-called Mormon War is also more critical to the rest of Joseph's life than I had realized.The constant hounding from Missouri and Joseph having to fear for his life from then on was something I had not truly appreciated. I also think Bushman handles the issue of plural marriage as well as it can be handled. And I think I gained a deeper understanding of John C. Bennett's role in the persecution of the Mormons in Illinois than I had before. I think the actual martyrdom is given a little too light a treatment here, but it is well covered material, and as Bushman notes, a great deal of faith promoting stories have accumulated around that event over the years. And I think he was probably wise in not opening up his book to attacks because he debunked someone's favorite story about Joseph's last days. Just laying out what is actually documented from the time is very helpful.Even with all the praise I have given, I could heap a great deal more if I had the space and time. But I do want to share an honest perspective I have of the book. It is superior, truly marvelous, from Joseph's early life through the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. That is the zenith of the book. From that point on, while good, the author himself cites difficulty in getting to Joseph directly after that point because his life and the nature of the work of the Church and the lives of the Saints changed. The rest of the book is not as exquisite. Very good, interesting, and informative, but not quite equal to the previous material. It becomes more of a narrative than it had been probably for the reason Bushman cites.I did find the footnotes and bibliography quite useful. They enriched my reading and sent me on to other reading I found illuminating and will help me in selecting other directions for study for years to come. So, I am especially thankful for the hard work in putting all that material together, as well.This is a monumental work and a treasure. Read it. Evaluate it for yourself no matter your present attitude or judgments of Joseph Smith. You will have a more considered and informed view for having read it.And, I don't know why this is in the paperback section. I bought and read the hardcover of the book.Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Saline, MI

I’ve heard a lot about this book on podcasts etc. I’m a lifelong active member who is comfortable in the “I don’t know” space of Church history (meaning what was/was not actual revelation). I was already familiar with much of the history covered in this book. I’ve heard of it shaking people from one side of belief to the other (both ways), but for me it was just meh. To be honest, it was kinda boring, and there were many grammatical errors—says the reviewer writing “kinda” & “meh”, I know—but I expect a certain standard from a biography of this magnitude. The way it was outlined also felt very disjointed many times. There was often unnecessary repetition. Do we need THAT much genealogical background yet only a sentence of some other info that many would agree was probably more relevant? Overall, I felt it needed much better editing, but I do not regret trudging through it.

Bushman' preface tells us that this "biography" is a "believers" perspective on Joseph Smith's life and time. Thus, Bushman's book is valuable as insight into how devout, believing, practicing Mormons view Joseph's life.To me, as a "gentile", the book seems like great material for a seminary class or a testimony meeting. The basic Mormon "testimony" statement goes something like "I have a testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God." I also imagine that this book might be good material for missionary training. But I have some problems with the historical scholarship. (See the end of my review.)Regardless of my problems with Bushman's text, Joseph Smith is an interesting and complicated character. He has had a lasting impact, and fathered a religion that has members around the world. His life, as well as the religion and church he founded, is well worth studying. But then the same could be said of Ellen White, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, and many others.Bushman does give us a valuable, well written (but at times tedious), insight into a believer's perspective on Joseph. But the value of this book as history and biography is problematic. When the historical evidence suggests conflicting interpretations, or negative interpretations, of Joseph, and exposes some of the "rough edges", Bushman never deviates from his testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. Consequently Bushman always seems to be able to smooth the edges of this "rough stone rolling". In doing so there are some misrepresentations and omissions which diminish the value of this book as a serious study of Joseph's life and times.Bushman has solved the biography problem for believing Mormons who have waited over 60 years for an alternative, and antidote, to Fawn Brodie's "No one Knows my History". But I don't think he has transcended Brodie's work.If you are not a believing Mormon, a better introduction to Joseph Smith would be Robert Remini's short biography (182 pages), "Joseph Smith". Then tackle Bushman's tome (561 pages of text).Problems with Bushmans text:1. Bushman, as Mormon historians and General Authorities have done for over 100 years, misrepresents and distorts the perspective of Josiah Quincy. A century ago B. H. Roberts claimed that Quincy was "on our side". In the prologue (pp. 1-7), Bushman represents Quincy as a benign "puzzled skeptic". In fact Quincy saw Joseph and his religious movement as an "evil fanaticism" and likens Joseph to Thomas Muntzer (Mulhausen) and Jan van Leydon (Munster). This is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of Quincy's essay, along with comments about "demoralizing doctrines", "still darker revelations", and the assertion that Joseph's religion is "subversive of every duty which we claim from the citizen". ( For the significance of the references to Mulhausen and Munster see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, pp. 234-280 and Anthony Arthur, The Tailor-King).My concern is not with the merits of Quincy's essay. (You can read Quincy for yourself at [...]) Rather it is that Bushman's representation of Quincy as a benign "puzzled skeptic" is at best inaccurate. Quincy's puzzlement is of a very different nature than Bushman would have us believe. I think Quincy's statements might be closer to what Bushman call the "anti-Mormon argument" (p. 510). But Quincy's personal position on Joseph and his followers would be closer to Thomas Gregg's (p. 532).There are three other misrepresentations of Quincy. Towards the end of the book, Bushman quotes Quincy as saying the Nauvoo temple architecture is "odd and striking"(p. 504). But Quincy also said the temple was "grotesque"! In short he was not favorably impressed. On page 522 Bushman says "Quincy was surprised to hear Joseph invite a Methodist to preach from a Mormon pulpit." In Quincy's text the Methodist minister was clearly surprised at the invitation. But Quincy does not reveal his reaction to this invitation. Given Quincy's descriptions of the banter between Joseph and the minister, I think it would be more appropriate to say Quincy was at best amused.On page 560 Bushman says "Quincy saw in him `that kingly faculty that directs, as by intrinsic light." Bushman puts a period at the end of this quote when there should have been an ellipsis. The sentence concludes "the feeble or confused souls who are looking for guidance." Why did Bushman suggest that the sentence ended at "intrinsic light"? What was Quincy trying to say by this remark? Quincy clearly recognized Joseph as a natural and charismatic leader. While Quincy acknowledged Joseph's leadership strengths, this apparent compliment has to be tempered by the reference to "feeble or confused souls"? Also consider the Mulhausen and Munster references. I don't think that Quincy was in awe of Joseph, or impressed with Joseph in a positive way. Yet in the paragraph that contains this quote, Bushman is expressing his own sense of awe and marvel at Joseph's life and accomplishments. Bushman is entitled to his view of Joseph. But I don't think he is entitled to suggest that Quincy shared his view.2. Bushman's discussion of the "View of the Hebrews" as a source for Joseph's writing the Book of Mormon (p. 96), fails to cite B. H. Roberts' extended essay documenting similarities between the two books. My concern is not with the merits of Roberts essay. The problem is that Bushman completely ignores Roberts essay in discussing this topic, as well as Roberts essay on archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. (p. 92) (Roberts essays are published by Signature Books: "Studies of the Book of Mormon", 1985, [...])I could cite more problems but I would greatly exceed what I think is the appropriate length for an Amazon review.

I've not only read this book through but use it as a reference time and again. This is with out doubt the best biography of Joseph Smith I have read. I am a believer and Mormon enthusiast and also a history graduate and enthusiast. I don't accept this book is a 'warts and all' biography - it's just a biography. All biographies give an account of a person's life and no person, save Christ himself, has lived an unblemished life. Bushman brings Joseph Smith to life as a man of terrific energy and courage. I think I can distinguish a proper history book from a hagiography and Bushman's book is the former. Having said that, I declare this volume has deepened my love for Joseph Smith. Bushman recognises that few people are neutral about Smith. People tend to love him or hate him. Rough Stone Rolling has deepened my love for him.Bushman's particular expertise is in American cultural history and Rough Stone Rolling certainly places Joseph Smith, his family, friends and enemies in the context of their cultural surroundings better than anything else I've ever read. If prospective readers are put off by the notion of religion and religious leaders I would urge them to try Rough Stone Rolling as a valuable history book about nineteenth century America.

Quite excellent though the author did shy away from certain 8negative) conclusions. . In the end, though objectiveness was attempted, the author did not quite suceed.

I do like it and it's a challenging book for LDS members who want some meat with their historical milk. Very eye opening in places if you've never been exposed to anything more than standard LDS manuals. Easy to read and gives a very good overall coverage of the history and the man. Joseph is more fascinating when we see him having arguments, coming to blows, managing crisis after crisis (many of his own doing) and struggling to build a church in a very turbulent time. Joseph is portrayed much more realistically than you'll get in standard pro Joseph books and he comes out so much the better for it - a flawed genius rather than a demi-god. 2 stars missing because he skirted around some areas (presumably to maintain his membership!) and due to a lack of maps and pictures with the text.Definately get it if you want a good solid church history focused on Joseph and to understand why some of the doctrines appeared when they did (Ok that was controversial - to re-phrase - the context of those revelations.) Depending on where your beliefs are you'll find both justification and challenge to your feelings regarding Joseph.

Very good book. Can't stop reading it at every opportunity. A portrait of a man determined to do what he felt God wanted him to do despite all opposition.

Author aims to be objective on a subject that bitterly divides people.