<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Still no definitive biography of Joseph Smith
Review: Donna Hill's biography of Joseph Smith is good. Ms. Hill does a good job of telling the history without being too partisan (pro/anti mormon), unlike the two preceding major biographies of Joseph Smith. However, she falls into the trap in many instances of not going into enough detail, and not elaborating enough. This book seemed to me too rushed and incomplete. It is a good introduction to the life of Joseph Smith, but it left me feeling that I still did not know who the man was that she was writing about. This is not an earth-shattering biography, but merely a good biography. Other reviewers who have been astounded by this work, I believe, over-reacted in their praise of Ms. Hill's biography. Other historical figures from the 19th century have their biographers: Lincoln (who some may say has too many) has D.H. Donald and C. Sandburg (who I consider to be the best), Robert E. Lee has D.S. Freeman, U.S. Grant has McFeely, and Theodore Roosevelt (better included in the 20th century, but including him here helps me make my point) has Edmund Morris. Joseph Smith is still without a definitive biographer: perhaps because even the source material for writing about him is unavailable or suspicious. Never the less, I do not believe that his book is as good as it is going to get about Joseph Smith.
Rating: 
Summary: Hill isn't as unbiased as the publisher tries to portray her
Review: Donna Hill's book was a disappointment to me. It gets three stars only because she does a respectable job in the last half of the book of recounting the Church's experience in Nauvoo, the polygamy issue, and the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The most disappointing aspect of Hill's book is the superficial way she examines the evidence and circumstances surrounding the First Vision and the writing of the Book of Mormon. She examines the three separate accounts written by Smith of his First Vision and essentially states they are reconciliable. This echoes the assessment of the accounts made by Dean Jesse in his article in 1973 on the First Vision which occurred in Brigham Young University Studies Journal. Hill leaves out the fact that Smith stated he was a different age during each recounting of the vision, that the message delivered by the heavenly beings was significantly different in each account, and that his inability to specifically date the vision differs dramatically from his ability to date with absolute specificity the vision that told him to go dig up the Golden Plates. Also troubling about her analysis (or lack thereof) is the following: 1. She alludes to a dream that Smith's father had which is recounted in Lucy Smith's biography of her son, but fails to mention this dream somehow found its way totally intact into First Nephi in the Book of Mormon. 2. She fails to deal with the issue of Smith's imagination and the fact he told tales recounting the early inhabitants of the Americas prior to the time the Book of Mormon was translated (Lucy Smith's biography does recount this) 3. She discusses the subject matter of the Book of Mormon, but fails to deal at all with the vast body of extrinsic evidence that tends to refute its claims (the fact that there is no evidence that animals described in the Book of Mormon lived here during the time mentioned, DNA testing showing Indians are related to Asiatic peoples--instead of Middle Eastern Jews, the absence of archaelogy establishing metallurgy, shipbuilding, etc.) Hill does deal with Smith's 1826 trial in Bainbridge, New York for being an "imposter and moneydigger". She does admit that he may have been convicted of the crime and put on probation, but fails to grasp some of the larger implications of the event. First, the whole thing started when Josiah Stowel traveled all the way from Bainbridge to Palmyra to find Smith to look for buried treasure. In order for this to occur, Smith *had* to have had a reputation for engaging in such activities that was fairly widely known. Second, several accounts of the trial say that Stowel testified that he knew Smith could look into a seer stone and see buried treasure underneath the earth. The implication of this is that Smith had broad persuasive powers. Since people can't see what is underground with a seer stone one must conjecture why he claimed that he could. I felt her treatment of the Book of Abraham controversy was inadequate. She admits that modern Egyptologists that have translated part of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was written have a very different translation than that which Smith claimed. However, she suggests that perhaps the papyri only served as a "catalyst" which opened his mind to receive the inspiration to write the Book. Perhaps, but entries from Smith's own journals during this time period use the language that he was preparing an Egyptian alphabet and grammar to translate the papyri. One has to ask the question, just exactly when does a prophet say something that is accurate, and when does he not? The book redeems itself, in part, by recounting history of the Saints, as Smith began to build the church. Her recitation of the polygamy issue in not a whitewash. The persecutions that the Mormon people endured in Missouri and Illinois are absolutely shocking. Hopefully, they will never be repeated against any group, anywhere. I hadn't realized, until I read this book, that things were so bad in Illinois at the time of the Mormon expulsion from Nauvoo, that Governor Ford actually feared Civil War. Smith does come through in this book as a highly charismatic, very likeable, and highly intelligent individual. This is a far cry from some church works which have attempted to paint him as an ignorant country boy. An interesting, but a superficial book.
Rating:
Summary: A Superficial Analysis of Joseph Smith
Review: Donna Hill's book was a disappointment to me. It gets three stars only because she does a respectable job in the last half of the book of recounting the Church's experience in Nauvoo, the polygamy issue, and the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The most disappointing aspect of Hill's book is the superficial way she examines the evidence and circumstances surrounding the First Vision and the writing of the Book of Mormon. She examines the three separate accounts written by Smith of his First Vision and essentially states they are reconciliable. This echoes the assessment of the accounts made by Dean Jesse in his article in 1973 on the First Vision which occurred in Brigham Young University Studies Journal. Hill leaves out the fact that Smith stated he was a different age during each recounting of the vision, that the message delivered by the heavenly beings was significantly different in each account, and that his inability to specifically date the vision differs dramatically from his ability to date with absolute specificity the vision that told him to go dig up the Golden Plates. Also troubling about her analysis (or lack thereof) is the following: 1. She alludes to a dream that Smith's father had which is recounted in Lucy Smith's biography of her son, but fails to mention this dream somehow found its way totally intact into First Nephi in the Book of Mormon. 2. She fails to deal with the issue of Smith's imagination and the fact he told tales recounting the early inhabitants of the Americas prior to the time the Book of Mormon was translated (Lucy Smith's biography does recount this) 3. She discusses the subject matter of the Book of Mormon, but fails to deal at all with the vast body of extrinsic evidence that tends to refute its claims (the fact that there is no evidence that animals described in the Book of Mormon lived here during the time mentioned, DNA testing showing Indians are related to Asiatic peoples--instead of Middle Eastern Jews, the absence of archaelogy establishing metallurgy, shipbuilding, etc.) Hill does deal with Smith's 1826 trial in Bainbridge, New York for being an "imposter and moneydigger". She does admit that he may have been convicted of the crime and put on probation, but fails to grasp some of the larger implications of the event. First, the whole thing started when Josiah Stowel traveled all the way from Bainbridge to Palmyra to find Smith to look for buried treasure. In order for this to occur, Smith *had* to have had a reputation for engaging in such activities that was fairly widely known. Second, several accounts of the trial say that Stowel testified that he knew Smith could look into a seer stone and see buried treasure underneath the earth. The implication of this is that Smith had broad persuasive powers. Since people can't see what is underground with a seer stone one must conjecture why he claimed that he could. I felt her treatment of the Book of Abraham controversy was inadequate. She admits that modern Egyptologists that have translated part of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was written have a very different translation than that which Smith claimed. However, she suggests that perhaps the papyri only served as a "catalyst" which opened his mind to receive the inspiration to write the Book. Perhaps, but entries from Smith's own journals during this time period use the language that he was preparing an Egyptian alphabet and grammar to translate the papyri. One has to ask the question, just exactly when does a prophet say something that is accurate, and when does he not? The book redeems itself, in part, by recounting history of the Saints, as Smith began to build the church. Her recitation of the polygamy issue in not a whitewash. The persecutions that the Mormon people endured in Missouri and Illinois are absolutely shocking. Hopefully, they will never be repeated against any group, anywhere. I hadn't realized, until I read this book, that things were so bad in Illinois at the time of the Mormon expulsion from Nauvoo, that Governor Ford actually feared Civil War. Smith does come through in this book as a highly charismatic, very likeable, and highly intelligent individual. This is a far cry from some church works which have attempted to paint him as an ignorant country boy. An interesting, but a superficial book.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent scholarship, strong stomach required
Review: I found this book extremely fascinating and balanced. One question I continued to ask myself when reading was whether or not a non-Mormon, upon reading this book, would be drawn to a favorable conclusion regarding the LDS church. I suppose that many members of the LDS church will find this a difficult read, as there are many items troubling for one (such as myself) who believes that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of Heavenly Father. But there are many positive, credible and admirable qualities that Ms. Hill brings out in her rendition, and I found her writing style very crisp, clear, well-reasoned and easy to read. This book kept my interest and I found it difficult to put down. I would recommend this book if for no other reason that it presents an incredible story about an incredible man, with a fair assessment of probable inferences where facts are lacking to establish certainty. On balance, I would have to say my faith in my church is strengthened knowing that its establishment survived against great odds.
Rating: 
Summary: Objectivity is Not Possible...
Review: The chore of any biographer is to attempt to portray their subject in as true a light as possible. The problem lies in the reality that most people, especially the colorful characters that shape history, look so different when cast under different lights. None more so than Joseph Smith. Donna Hill tackles no small task in attempting a balanced look at an extremely controversial figure, one whose name is had for divine praise or demonic derision, but seldom anything disspationate. What is important is that she doesn't shy away from the tough topics including; the Smith family's fascination with folk magic; money digging; polygamy; and the Danites, yet leaves the reader free to draw their own conclusions. For instance, as she describes what many critics have called "the Zion's Camp fiasco," the reader is left to recognize the importance of the journey, while understanding the tragic circumstances of its conclusion. What she has done is describe the "times and seasons" of the Prophet's life, while avoiding to a reasoble degree the temptation to cast judgement on that life (although she tends to be considerably more forgiving of Joseph Smith's shortcomings than is Fawn Brodie in "No Man Knows My History." On the other hand, she is far more objective than Joseph Smith himself in his "History of the Church.") To faithful followers of "The First Mormon," it is essential to read the book with an eye toward understanding the meaning of the life of Joseph Smith, rather than getting caught up in the possibility that he was a fallible human being. To the non-Mormon, it is important to understand the times and circumstances that produced a man of extraordinary talent and vision, which has led to the establishment of a world religion that is destined to play a role in shaping the future of our civilization. The topic, Joseph Smith, is no trivial matter, and understanding him is no trivial undertaking. Ms. Hill has done as admirable a job as any I know of.
Rating:
Summary: Hill isn't as unbiased as the publisher tries to portray her
Review: This book is billed as an unbiased history/biography of Joseph Smith. I had read Fawn Brodie's, No Man Knows My History... and was "itching" for more. I think Ms. Hill should just openly admit that her brother wrote a major work, that she quotes liberally, while working at BYU--she may not be Mormon, but she has a vested interest in the cause... promoting her brother's work? This book was a cheap second.... Read Ms. Brodie's work
Rating:
Summary: Smiths best biography, for now.
Review: This is certainly the best biography about Joseph Smith so far. I believe it is certainly the most objective, it does not bash Smith or praise and defend him. Its objective is to attempt to understand Joseph Smith. I feel for the most part it does achieve that goal. I felt after reading it I certainly had a better understanding of who Joseph Smith was. I appreciated the fact that Hill did not get off on issues such as whether or not the Book of Mormon is real history or if Joseph Smith was a true prophet, that was not the books goal. My only criticism is it does not really focus on Joseph Smiths culture or enviroment that he lived in. It also sometimes seems that it is more of a early history of the Mormon Church than a biography. There are more biographies about Joseph Smith currently being written that I believe will replace this one as being the most definitive biography of Joseph Smith. However right now there is no better biography about Joseph Smith available. And having spent several hours of my own in the Churches Historical department studying certain aspects of Joseph Smiths life, I do feel somewhat qualified in saying that.
Rating:
Summary: The best that can be done
Review: This is the best book about Joseph Smith that I have read.Hill tells the story as fairly as she can through the availabledocuments surrounding Smith's life. Since Smith was/is such acontroversial figure, there is a load of conflicting reports about him. Hill was able to let the primary documents speak for themselves. When conflicting reports existed, she presented them all and let the reader be the judge. Loved it. END
<< 1 >>
| 
