I could be wrong, but I suspect that one major reason it isn't discussed in American Literature courses is because it's such a touchy subject. As far as literary style goes, it's hard to teach about it without also discussing the contemporary literature it draws heavily from. The same goes for the basic premise of the story. These are topics which the LDS would not find too... savory. That's not to mention the biographical history of the author and the book's immediate cultural impact - subjects to which those who care most about the book would object, were the focus to be historical rather than based on church narrative. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just think that a lot of the scholarly repor that believers give the book is inflated by the church's claims about its genesis. I simply don't think that it's as remarkable as it's made out to be. An objective look at its history and impact would by necessity be more a story about contemporary influences and persistent, institutional obscurantism than anything else.
Who gives a shot about offending Mormons. I used to be one. It’s clearly fiction. And should be addressed however anyone wants. The brain washing happens when people are young, or someone is gullible and maybe in a fragile stare in life. So many Mormons become stuck in that phase in life even as they get older when it comes to the book. To them it felt good back then abs believed that was the Holy Ghost telling them it’s true. They hold on to that moment that might have happened 30 years ago and don’t want to consider being critical of it cause that would mean they wasted 30 years of life believing a fictional story was true. It’s sad. This religion is dangerous.
I had a friend who was a church member. He wrote his PhD in religious studies on the subject from the New Testament. he interviewed and got a job with a decent department with a doctoral program. He was told upon arriving that he was to do legitimate research for the tenure process. When he questioned it, the person told him Mormon Studies are not taken as serious research in universities. I know of some people who now hold research chairs in various fields like history, religion, sociology or english literature. But the chairs are funded by wealthy church members and expect the chairs to be sympathetic to the church. This would be true whether the chairs were LDS members or not.
very interesting and well presented and explained in terms of its relation to the Bible and 19th century America. Also where the American Indians fit into context of 19th century America.
At around the 16 minute mark Bushman claims that "there are very precious few references to the Indians (Native Americans) in the Book of Mormon". This is intellectually disingenuous on his part. The Book of Mormon is supposed to be a history of the Native Americans. In the introduction to the Book of Mormon it says, "Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites". This is absolutely supposed to be the story of a group of Native Americans, and how they came to be in the Americas. Bushman is a mix of candid revelations and deliberate misinformation about the Book of Mormon contents.
Writers' responses to the Book of Mormon at 9:59. Mark Twain writes in Roughing It how he read the Book of Mormon and viewed the book as "chloroform in print." He also writes of meeting Brigham Young in Salt Lake City. He was introduced to some of Brigham's wives and children.
Mr. Bushman is amazingly brilliant and nice and full of humor, and like the genius writer Henry James, doesn't tell you everything; he does tell enough however, to get your curiosity up, to go read yourself and then the mind and heart go to another level.
At 5:32. It is interesting that Richard says JS "dictated" the Book of Mormon to his wife and friends in 1828 and 1829. That is different from translation.
+Siyasanga Norm Matshayana Ya, I kept wondering what was going on in his brain. "Wow, ramble, mumble, stammer, blah, blah, blah.... Just ask your question! What is your point?"
One might ask. Who wtote, authored the Book of Mormon or the Holy Bible for that case 1. God, writings of his Holy Prophets 2. The Devil, for what?, Why?, 3. A Mere mortal man.
Those that tear it apart have never read it in full. I will break you down and humble you to change your life. Only ignoramuses say it's false. I have studied it for 47 years and it's astonishing the future of America is depicted in it and so are you especially if you take a stand against it. It is what it says it is anoth
That is objectively untrue. I'm a walking, talking counterexample, as was Mark Twain, who described it as "chloroform in print". Missionaries give out thousands of copies of the book; thousands of people _read_ the book, and the overwhelming majority think nothing of it.
Professor Bushman is a great thinker historian. I admire him and also his faith. But face it BOM is just lifted from The Bible. The rest is fluff and folklore.
..the looks from everyone, when the moderator continues his tack, is precious. Bushman is probably wondering, what have I done to deserve this? The answer, is an apologist's heaven; More than you can imagine.
+polemeros Ya, for sure. The moderator: too much stammering, incomplete sentences, crazy tangents, and way out of focus. A very confusing moderator sabotages an otherwise great opportunity to discuss something meaningful. What a crappy interview after the moderator hogged it up with nonsense.
@42:36 R U FREAKIN SERIOUS!!!?? This guy drones on FOREVAAAAAR. Then @ 46:00, after spouting nothing but crap for 3 and a half minutes straight he has the balls to say..."Now having asked that question I would like to answer it." and yammers on for ANOTHER 6 MINUTES until 52:00. LULZ! WTF?!! When the comments say he B.S.ed for 10 mins they're not just using a big number, rounding up, or joking. He straight up droned on for 10 MINUTES STRAIGHT. Good lord I feel bad for his family and friends. I feel dumber after hearing this embarrassment to the human race.
Oh, please! It isn't literature. Studying old Sears Catalogues would be of more interest to students of American Literature: their influence on American life and society is immense. The BOM, on the other hand, does not now have and has never had any influence whatsoever; even on Mormon society or even something they might refer to as literature.
If Bushman was any drier sand would be coming out of his ears! He's a bright fellow, but we need a version that's more to the point and less verbose. Daniel C. Peterson is more my speed. We need to think of the Book of Mormon as a work of a real people. The Doctrine & Covenants is much more relevant to me.
They are two different kinds of people. I like hearing them both. If you listen to this in the overall context of other talks by Bushman, you may change your position just a bit.
Both books are fictional made by one man. D&c does determine the rules the Mormons follow and should also be studied. But maybe Joseph smiths needs to be studied cause he made both of these abs people follow it.
@@imoutbye » In the mid 90s, LDS explorers led by George Potter gained access to the Arabian Peninsula for the first time. Using only a compass, a Book of Mormon and a land Rover, they followed Nephi's directions, hoping to find the valley Nephi's family stayed, by a "river of water" (a desert stream). They found that desert Bedouins could travel 25 miles a day with camels, so they decided that the valley must be around 75 miles from where the family began their journey. They found that their journey followed a frankincense trade route, so how did Joseph Smith know that? Their path was clearly delineated and there was no chance of taking a wrong turn. As they approached the 75th mile, the explorers came across an oasis with grains, fruit and a valley with high granite walls. They also found a stream of water running through it. Nephi's account tells us that Lehi built an "altar of stones" whereby he could offer sacrifices to the Lord; and just inside the valley walls was an altar of stones. Following the stream of water, they saw that it flowed towards the Red Sea. They also found pottery shards and the remains of an ancient campsite. They subsequently visited the Department of Antiquities and discovered that the campsite dated back to circa 600 B.C., the very time period in which Nephi said they were there. Again, how did Joseph Smith know? And how did he know that Nephi's directions would lead to the _only_ perennial stream of water in the country, and that it flowed into the Red Sea, exactly as described by Nephi. It's strong evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. Continuing on, the researchers found Nahom (NHM), the place where they buried Ishmael. It was the only proper name Nephi listed in that part of the world. And its name was chiseled on an altar that dating back to _before_ 600 B.C. Our critics said, balderdash! It was only a coincidence! Then, in the mid-90s, non-LDS archeologists began finding mummified bodies at Nahom. And it's name, they learned, had to do with comfort, or comforting. If one then goes in a north-eastward direction from Nahom, as described by Nephi, one comes to Bountiful, a beautiful tropical coastal land that meets all of Nephi's descriptions. It had fifteen types of grains, fruits, honey (and bees), high cliffs and enough ore to make any tools they might need in building a ship. It also had inland harbors and labor. Nephi also mentioned a mountain, whereby he could commune with God. And there are several mountains that meets that criteria. The trail used by Nephi avoids the worst desert areas, and Joseph Smith simply couldn't have known about them in writing the Book of Mormon. He was uneducated and he was only 24 years old. We don't benefit one iota if you accept our claims. Joseph Smith would have had to be a savant to have written it; however, even savants have to have some sort of background information before producing what they produce. And Joseph Smith had none of that until the end of his life, and too many people would have had to have known and lied for him before he could have pulled it off. Nevertheless, YOU be the judge. Had he been lying, someone would have discovered it. 🔹🌞🌛✨
@@imoutbye » It's easy to just sluff off things like the Book of Mormon and t the Doctrine & Covenants by just wishing them away, but it's a great deal more difficult when one reads them prayerfully. Take Section 76, for example. When I read it, I can no more reject it than I could reject the entire New Testament. Joseph Smith would have had to have been the greatest religious scholar to ever live to have produced it. Besides, do you have any idea of the number of people who would have had to have lied to bring the restored gospel to fruition? How many false prophets in the history of the world do you know of who could pull off one vision to two people at the same time? As far as I know, it's _NEVER_ happened in the history of the world! False prophets work in one's, not two's and more. I can say the sky is purple and it doesn't make it so. You'll have to do better. Read 1 Corinthians 15, then D&C 76. I don't know of any country bumpkin who could do what Smith did. 🔹🌞🌛✨
Moderator: "I wonder if I could piggyback on that last question...
*9.5 minutes later*
"...does that make sense?"
Sheesh.
Brilliant lecture. Bushman has a way of saying things like no other
I could be wrong, but I suspect that one major reason it isn't discussed in American Literature courses is because it's such a touchy subject. As far as literary style goes, it's hard to teach about it without also discussing the contemporary literature it draws heavily from. The same goes for the basic premise of the story. These are topics which the LDS would not find too... savory. That's not to mention the biographical history of the author and the book's immediate cultural impact - subjects to which those who care most about the book would object, were the focus to be historical rather than based on church narrative.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just think that a lot of the scholarly repor that believers give the book is inflated by the church's claims about its genesis. I simply don't think that it's as remarkable as it's made out to be. An objective look at its history and impact would by necessity be more a story about contemporary influences and persistent, institutional obscurantism than anything else.
Who gives a shot about offending Mormons. I used to be one. It’s clearly fiction. And should be addressed however anyone wants.
The brain washing happens when people are young, or someone is gullible and maybe in a fragile stare in life. So many Mormons become stuck in that phase in life even as they get older when it comes to the book. To them it felt good back then abs believed that was the Holy Ghost telling them it’s true. They hold on to that moment that might have happened 30 years ago and don’t want to consider being critical of it cause that would mean they wasted 30 years of life believing a fictional story was true.
It’s sad. This religion is dangerous.
I had a friend who was a church member. He wrote his PhD in religious studies on the subject from the New Testament. he interviewed and got a job with a decent department with a doctoral program. He was told upon arriving that he was to do legitimate research for the tenure process. When he questioned it, the person told him Mormon Studies are not taken as serious research in universities. I know of some people who now hold research chairs in various fields like history, religion, sociology or english literature. But the chairs are funded by wealthy church members and expect the chairs to be sympathetic to the church. This would be true whether the chairs were LDS members or not.
Bushman is one of the best writers of history I've read. "Rough Stone Rolling" is superb.
Listening to it now, as a raging convert, and love him for lucid works !
very interesting and well presented and explained in terms of its relation to the Bible and 19th century America. Also where the American Indians fit into context of 19th century America.
The moderator's questions drag on far too long, and he doesn't appear to know what he wants to say
One of our missionary then was Richard bushman..assigned here in Baguio mission..and become AP .
OMG. What did the last questioner ask? I have no idea what he said, but I couldn’t stop listening.
Oh my hell! What are you saying man???? What are you asking???
By the way when did the golden plates disappear???
At around the 16 minute mark Bushman claims that "there are very precious few references to the Indians (Native Americans) in the Book of Mormon".
This is intellectually disingenuous on his part. The Book of Mormon is supposed to be a history of the Native Americans. In the introduction to the Book of Mormon it says, "Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites". This is absolutely supposed to be the story of a group of Native Americans, and how they came to be in the Americas. Bushman is a mix of candid revelations and deliberate misinformation about the Book of Mormon contents.
Writers' responses to the Book of Mormon at 9:59. Mark Twain writes in Roughing It how he read the Book of Mormon and viewed the book as "chloroform in print." He also writes of meeting Brigham Young in Salt Lake City. He was introduced to some of Brigham's wives and children.
Mr. Bushman is amazingly brilliant and nice and full of humor, and like the genius writer Henry James, doesn't tell you everything; he does tell enough however, to get your curiosity up, to go read yourself and then the mind and heart go to another level.
At 5:32. It is interesting that Richard says JS "dictated" the Book of Mormon to his wife and friends in 1828 and 1829. That is different from translation.
I believe "dictating" per the dictionary simply refers to the act of speaking aloud for the purpose of being recorded. So, apples and bananas.
The Moderator though.....
+Siyasanga Norm Matshayana Ya, I kept wondering what was going on in his brain. "Wow, ramble, mumble, stammer, blah, blah, blah.... Just ask your question! What is your point?"
Very insightful! Harold Bloom's sympathetic view of Joseph Smith is one of the reasons I started to take the Book of Mormon more seriously.
The moderator totally just killed this whole presentation....
One might ask. Who wtote, authored the Book of Mormon or the Holy Bible for that case
1. God, writings of his Holy Prophets
2. The Devil, for what?, Why?,
3. A Mere mortal man.
Those that tear it apart have never read it in full. I will break you down and humble you to change your life. Only ignoramuses say it's false. I have studied it for 47 years and it's astonishing the future of America is depicted in it and so are you especially if you take a stand against it. It is what it says it is anoth
another testimony of Jesus CHRIST and His visitation to Anerica.
That is objectively untrue. I'm a walking, talking counterexample, as was Mark Twain, who described it as "chloroform in print". Missionaries give out thousands of copies of the book; thousands of people _read_ the book, and the overwhelming majority think nothing of it.
Professor Bushman is a great thinker historian. I admire him and also his faith. But face it BOM is just lifted from The Bible. The rest is fluff and folklore.
That long question at the end was ridiculous. What are you asking????? Oh, it’s racist, gotcha.
..the looks from everyone, when the moderator continues his tack, is precious. Bushman is probably wondering, what have I done to deserve this? The answer, is an apologist's heaven; More than you can imagine.
The brother doesn't know what he wants to ask Bushman. I hope he's not a Morman, they don't consider him worthy of their fictional realm.
The Moderator sounds like an affirmative action hire. Strings together PoMo phrases but not articulate.
+polemeros Ya, for sure. The moderator: too much stammering, incomplete sentences, crazy tangents, and way out of focus. A very confusing moderator sabotages an otherwise great opportunity to discuss something meaningful. What a crappy interview after the moderator hogged it up with nonsense.
Seriously!!!!!!
@42:36 R U FREAKIN SERIOUS!!!?? This guy drones on FOREVAAAAAR. Then @ 46:00, after spouting nothing but crap for 3 and a half minutes straight he has the balls to say..."Now having asked that question I would like to answer it." and yammers on for ANOTHER 6 MINUTES until 52:00. LULZ! WTF?!!
When the comments say he B.S.ed for 10 mins they're not just using a big number, rounding up, or joking. He straight up droned on for 10 MINUTES STRAIGHT. Good lord I feel bad for his family and friends. I feel dumber after hearing this embarrassment to the human race.
Oh my gosh! I wanted to shoot myself!
Oh Richard give it up. The whole thing was a lie.you know it
The book of Mormon was pure plagarism.
Read rough stone rolling too. Hey! DNA evidence? What r u drinking?????
Oh, please! It isn't literature. Studying old Sears Catalogues would be of more interest to students of American Literature: their influence on American life and society is immense. The BOM, on the other hand, does not now have and has never had any influence whatsoever; even on Mormon society or even something they might refer to as literature.
Mike Stewart you wrote an autobiography? Good for you.
Clearly a statement of uneducated conjecture without having read or studied the voracity of the book.
Ah. When you can tell someone has never read it.
@@silver-tonguedstacker3250 If you're going to call someone else "uneducated" you should at least spell "veracity" right.
If Bushman was any drier sand would be coming out of his ears! He's a bright fellow, but we need a version that's more to the point and less verbose. Daniel C. Peterson is more my speed. We need to think of the Book of Mormon as a work of a real people. The Doctrine & Covenants is much more relevant to me.
They are two different kinds of people. I like hearing them both. If you listen to this in the overall context of other talks by Bushman, you may change your position just a bit.
Daniel C Peterson is cruel and biting. There is a reason he would never be invited to something like this.
Both books are fictional made by one man. D&c does determine the rules the Mormons follow and should also be studied. But maybe Joseph smiths needs to be studied cause he made both of these abs people follow it.
@@imoutbye » In the mid 90s, LDS explorers led by George Potter gained access to the Arabian Peninsula for the first time. Using only a compass, a Book of Mormon and a land Rover, they followed Nephi's directions, hoping to find the valley Nephi's family stayed, by a "river of water" (a desert stream). They found that desert Bedouins could travel 25 miles a day with camels, so they decided that the valley must be around 75 miles from where the family began their journey.
They found that their journey followed a frankincense trade route, so how did Joseph Smith know that? Their path was clearly delineated and there was no chance of taking a wrong turn. As they approached the 75th mile, the explorers came across an oasis with grains, fruit and a valley with high granite walls. They also found a stream of water running through it.
Nephi's account tells us that Lehi built an "altar of stones" whereby he could offer sacrifices to the Lord; and just inside the valley walls was an altar of stones. Following the stream of water, they saw that it flowed towards the Red Sea. They also found pottery shards and the remains of an ancient campsite. They subsequently visited the Department of Antiquities and discovered that the campsite dated back to circa 600 B.C., the very time period in which Nephi said they were there.
Again, how did Joseph Smith know? And how did he know that Nephi's directions would lead to the _only_ perennial stream of water in the country, and that it flowed into the Red Sea, exactly as described by Nephi. It's strong evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.
Continuing on, the researchers found Nahom (NHM), the place where they buried Ishmael. It was the only proper name Nephi listed in that part of the world. And its name was chiseled on an altar that dating back to _before_ 600 B.C. Our critics said, balderdash! It was only a coincidence! Then, in the mid-90s, non-LDS archeologists began finding mummified bodies at Nahom. And it's name, they learned, had to do with comfort, or comforting.
If one then goes in a north-eastward direction from Nahom, as described by Nephi, one comes to Bountiful, a beautiful tropical coastal land that meets all of Nephi's descriptions. It had fifteen types of grains, fruits, honey (and bees), high cliffs and enough ore to make any tools they might need in building a ship. It also had inland harbors and labor. Nephi also mentioned a mountain, whereby he could commune with God. And there are several mountains that meets that criteria.
The trail used by Nephi avoids the worst desert areas, and Joseph Smith simply couldn't have known about them in writing the Book of Mormon. He was uneducated and he was only 24 years old.
We don't benefit one iota if you accept our claims. Joseph Smith would have had to be a savant to have written it; however, even savants have to have some sort of background information before producing what they produce. And Joseph Smith had none of that until the end of his life, and too many people would have had to have known and lied for him before he could have pulled it off.
Nevertheless, YOU be the judge. Had he been lying, someone would have discovered it. 🔹🌞🌛✨
@@imoutbye » It's easy to just sluff off things like the Book of Mormon and t the Doctrine & Covenants by just wishing them away, but it's a great deal more difficult when one reads them prayerfully. Take Section 76, for example. When I read it, I can no more reject it than I could reject the entire New Testament.
Joseph Smith would have had to have been the greatest religious scholar to ever live to have produced it. Besides, do you have any idea of the number of people who would have had to have lied to bring the restored gospel to fruition? How many false prophets in the history of the world do you know of who could pull off one vision to two people at the same time? As far as I know, it's _NEVER_ happened in the history of the world! False prophets work in one's, not two's and more.
I can say the sky is purple and it doesn't make it so. You'll have to do better. Read 1 Corinthians 15, then D&C 76. I don't know of any country bumpkin who could do what Smith did. 🔹🌞🌛✨
Go home!!!!!!