Best in 7 days
Pay in installments of $6.22 with
,
and
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jun 11 - Jun 16
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
estudio para un panel iii charles sprague pearceLa impresin artstica de la obra "Paul Wayland Bartlett" nos transporta a un mundo donde la escultura cobra vida a travs de formas elegantes y detalles minuciosos. El juego de luz en las superficies pulidas crea una atmsfera casi mgica, donde cada curva y cada ngulo parecen contar una historia. El artista logra capturar la belleza atemporal de sus temas, otorgndoles una dimensin casi espiritual. Esta obra encarna la armona entre la tcnica y la emocin,
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
Discover Niche Categories That Outsell
Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order
Best in 7 days
Best in 7 days
Best in 7 days
Best in 7 days
4.5 ★★★★★
Based on 1889 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 4
Good material for seminary class or testimony meeting, questionable history and biography
Format: Hardcover
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.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 26, 2006
★★★★★ 5
Like a freight train coming through...
Format: Paperback
I skimmed through a friend's paperback version and quickly realized that this book would require much more careful reading and study. I bought the Kindle version and spent 2 months carefully going through it. I honestly do not know how I missed this book when it came out and I'm embarrassed that it took me 7 years to find it.
Like most LDS readers and reviewers here, this completely different approach to the Prophet's history throws you off while at the same time sucking you in. What's amazing to me is the way that Bushman tackles head-on the "problems" and "difficulties" with LDS history. As my title suggests, Bushman is like a freight train coming through Church history and it is a very welcome middle ground to both the Church version and the anti-Mormon version. As someone who has studied this stuff extensively, there was so much new for me in the book. For example, although I knew about the Zions Camp March, I never had actually learned that the whole expedition was an attempt to take back Jackson County lands by military means.
Also present in the book are things that I've wondered but never been able to ask, such as all the different aspects of Joseph's practice of polygamy- including lying to Emma, sex with multiple wives, and marrying women who were already married. Bushman is unflinching and I feel this approach is vital for the internet age. As the "Joseph Smith Papers" continue to get published giving writers the good sources materials, I expect more of this open kind of historical inquiry to be written. Joseph's bad temper, his trusting of untrustworthy people, and his mismanagement of multiple situations need to be studied alongside his incredible accomplishments and daring.
I agree with Bushman, who quotes Yale scholar Harold Bloom, that the King Follet discourse is one of the best sermons ever delivered in America. Bushman has a whole section dedicated to this one discourse, the climax of Joseph's theology and given at a time when so many things were going wrong for Joseph. I also agree with Bushman that it is a mystery why the King Follet discourse has not been canonized by the Church since it is equal to or superior to many of the revelations currently in the Doctrine & Covenants.
Fantastic book and I would give it more stars if I could. The only drawback for me was that Bushman starts by describing Joseph's grandparents and parents before he gets to Joseph and this part bored me a little, but is important for putting Joseph in his historical context. Bushman's scholarly credentials are top-notch and LDS readers will be surprised at how the depth of Bushman's understanding of American history gives more meaning to early LDS church history. Although a patriarch and devout LDS member, Bushman is also one of the preeminent scholars of American history and it comes through in the book. I can see this being a huge benefit to non-Mormon readers who want to approach Joseph from a historical perspective than a believers' perspective.
If you like this, I highly recommend you also read the author's "On the Road with Joseph Smith" which is a diary of Bushman's experiences with the book before and after it's release. Also, read Terryl Given's books starting with "By the Hand of Mormon".
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 18, 2012
★★★★★ 5
Very fair and academic
Format: Paperback
Very good book. I agree with the authors conclusion and felt the portrayal was both fair and academical.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 21, 2026
★★★★★ 5
As Close As You Will Get To Objectivity
Format: Paperback
If you have read "No Man Knows My History," you have to read "Rough Stone Rolling." The former biography was written by Fawn Brodie, a scholar who grew up LDS but left the church disenchanted and not believing that Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be--a prophet. The latter written by Bushman, a practicing LDS scholar who believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
In the preface of "Rough Stone Rolling," Bushman makes the legitimate point that there will never be consensus on Joseph Smith's character or achievements. Furthermore, he confesses that as a believing historian, pure objectivity is impossible.
Nonetheless, I think he comes closer to pure objectivity in this history than any other I have read on Joseph Smith. This has to be one of the best biographies I have ever read. The book is well written, loaded with historical fact, and any assumptions that are made are within detailed, historical contexts. Unlike Brodie's biography, it is very difficult to ascertain Bushman's own opinion. If he had not confessed his belief in the preface, you would wonder. Nowhere does Bushman try to convince you that Smith was a prophet and he is not afraid to explore Joseph Smith's weaknesses and shortcomings as a man. I am a believer so I admit that I may just relate to Bushman better than Brodie. Still, I know many practicing Mormons that would not like this book simply because they have to have Joseph Smith on a pedestal, untouchable, and locked in a glass case. I also know many faithful non-Mormons who believe that a prophet is certainly not a god but is definitely something more than human. Such readers will probably not care for this book either. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet but I also know he was a man with weaknesses, like every other prophet that came before him. In Bushman's own words, "flawless characters are neither attractive or useful." This is a history of a man; it is not scripture. After boldly claiming heavenly visions, Joseph Smith penned a few great books of scripture that are well worth reading if you really want to explore the faith.
Fawn Brodie takes the title for her biography from Joseph Smith's own admission in 1844 that "No Man Knows My History" and paints, in her opinion, the delusion and deceit behind Smith's confession.
Bushman takes the title for his biography from Joseph Smith's own admission in 1843 that he is a "Rough Stone Rolling" and gives you the most real, honest, and fair assessment of his life that I have ever read. He gives you the man Joseph Smith, with his strengths and weaknesses, and leaves the opinions to the reader.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 15, 2013
★★★★★ 3
Comprehensive, but not convincing to this non-believer
Format: Paperback
Having previously read Fawn Brodie's
, I read this one to get the believer's view. Bushman is at his best describing the evolution of Smith's thinking and revelations. Although the book is long, it is well written and authoritative. It gives a deeper understanding of Smith's religious philosophy than does Brodie's book.
To his credit, Bushman confronts many of the crucial controversies surrounding Smith. From my non-believer's perspective, however, the defenses of Smith are not remotely convincing. Some examples:
1. DNA analysis shows without question that the American Indians came from east Asia. This fact is in direct contradiction of the traditional LDS view that Native Americans are lost Israelites. Bushman argues that Smith may have been writing about a small tribe somewhere in New York, or about people outside North America altogether. Within a few pages, Bushman has forgotten about this controversy altogether, and happily describes the Book of Mormon as a history of the American Indians.
2. Smith made the huge mistake of reproducing parts of the hieroglyphics he claims to have interpreted as the "Book of Abraham." These documents have been translated by scholars and have nothing to do with Abraham. Bushman (pp. 291-2) puts forth the argument that Smith's translation may not have been a true translation, but instead may have been a divine revelation simply inspired by the presence of the scrolls. Bushman suggests the same for the Book of Mormon. This is a truly shocking stance for an LDS believer to take: if Smith's "translations" weren't translations, why should anyone believe that his revelations were divinely inspired? Ironically, Bushman's view here sounds much like Brodie's: Not anticipating that scholars would use the Rosetta stone to translate hieroglyphics, Smith imagined that bogus translations would not be found out.
3. Smith repeatedly lied about whether he and the Saints were practicing polygamy. Bushman's defense of Smith in this context reminds me of Bill Clinton's statements regarding Monica Lewinsky: Smith held a secret definition of the term "polygamy," and thus felt free to mislead (or lie) with impunity. The facts, as reported by both Brodie and Bushman, support the conclusion that Smith coerced women into his bed by arguing that their eternal salvation was at stake. The stain of Smith's lustful "revelation" regarding polygamy continues to haunt the LDS, which claims to recoil from earthly polygamy but argues that men (not women) get to have harems in heaven.
Despite these complaints, I recommend this book to non-believers who are patient enough to get through it. I feel that I have much greater insight into the LDS mindset than I did before.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 21, 2008
