Mormonism: technology, astronomy, and physics

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Brodie was a dishonest "historian." I say "historian" only because she purported to write history. That is not to say all her work was bad or inaccurate.

She was terribly shallow in the spiritual sense and could never grasp what was obvious in front of her face.

Danny White threw like a girl. I'm shocked.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, if what she produced was a subset of what Bushman relied on I've made my point. I was responding to Waters' post that she's been "totally discredited."

A "subset"? That's pretty convenient, eh?

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Honestly, I don't think there's that much to add beyond Brodie. There just isn't a whole lot of there there. This isn't the story of Rome or anything like that. Quinn has so run out of fresh material that he's now really into the margins, writing about JS's facination with magic and such. You go to the exmo site and get dizzy going round and around with the same old topics. I have a feeling that Quinn and Bushman will be out of print and Brodie will still be the standard.

Perhaps. And yet I would venture to guess that you have read neither Quinn nor Bushman.

Tell you what, SU. How about if you read Bushman and I read Brodie? Deal?

[Archaea]

Seattle, you're willing to opine about books you haven't read, about a subject for which you take only a passing interest?

You would crucify yourself on cross-examination.

Hi, I'm Seattle, former Mormon, heir to a prominent Mormon fortune, former extraordinary Missionary, but now avowed disaffected member, now opine over matters that are of little import to me and about which I've only read the Reader's Digest reviews of.

Read Quinn and Bushman. Brodie is just a story teller. Bushman is your typical boring historian. If ain't boring, it isn't history.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Seattle, you're willing to opine about books you haven't read, about a subject for which you take only a passing interest?

You would crucify yourself on cross-examination.

Hi, I'm Seattle, former Mormon, heir to a prominent Mormon fortune, former extraordinary Missionary, but now avowed disaffected member, now opine over matters that are of little import to me and about which I've only read the Reader's Digest reviews of.

Read Quinn and Bushman. Brodie is just a story teller. Bushman is your typical boring historian. If ain't boring, it isn't history.

So far as I know I'm still on the books.

I'm heir to nothing but maybe a few old books and knick knacks.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

A "subset"? That's pretty convenient, eh?



Perhaps. And yet I would venture to guess that you have read neither Quinn nor Bushman.

Tell you what, SU. How about if you read Bushman and I read Brodie? Deal?

I'll have to think about this. It's not really a fair trade because Brodie's book is shorter, less ponderous, and a better told story, as Archea has noted.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Except for the fact that there are many other critiques of the BOM besides Brodie's. Come on, SU, her book has been around forever. You don't think anyone else has done any research on the topic that is worth quoting? If I had to guess, I would say he probably quotes Michael D. Quinn the most.

I would expect Bushman to avoid citing secondary sources as much as possible. But certainly Brodie led him to much of the original documents he reviewed and cited.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'll have to think about this. It's not really a fair trade because Brodie's book is shorter, less ponderous, and a better told story, as Archea has noted.

You're starting to sound a little like Grapevine, who blasts the work for being unkind to Bruce R., but has never ventured to read it. Ah, for Seattle to be found in the company of grapevine, now there's an irony.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Still fighting the good fight, eh?

Here you go, buddy:

http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-R...e=UTF8&s=books

Just pull the trigger and all speculation can end. Don't believe all that stuff about it being "difficult" reading. Nonsense. Here is the Publisher's Weekly review (my emphasis):

---------------

How should a historian depict a man's life when that man, and his religion, remain a mystery to so many 200 years after his birth? Bushman, an emeritus professor at Columbia University and author of Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, greatly expands on that previous work, filling in many details of the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and carrying the story through to the end of Smith's life. Many continue to view Smith as an enigmatic and controversial figure. Bushman locates him in his historical and cultural context, fleshing out the many nuances of 19th-century American life that produced such a fertile ground for emerging religions. The author, a practicing Mormon, is aware that his book stands in the intersection of faith and scholarship, but does not avoid the problematic aspects of Smith's life and work, such as his practice of polygamy, his early attempts at treasure-seeking and his later political aspirations. In the end, Smith emerges as a genuine American phenomenon, a man driven by inspiration but not unaffected by his cultural context. This is a remarkable book, wonderfully readable and supported by exhaustive research. For anyone interested in the Mormon experience, it will be required reading for years to come. (Oct. 10)