I thought this topic would spark more interest but maybe it just interests me.  So, I apologize for posting this here after posting over at Nauvoo but I know we have a couple who post here and not at Nauvoo.  I posted this on my blog but knowing that it would not receive much commentary I wanted to put it someplace that might.

As I was searching  Google Books for information regarding some of my ancestors, a publication kept on coming up,  Radical Origins:  Early Mormon Converts and Their Colonial Ancestors  by Val Dean Rust. Understand that I have not read this book though at some point I may (somewhat depending on any feedback I get back on it). Here is a description found at Google Books:

 Val D. Rust's Radical Origins investigates whether the unconventional religious beliefs of their colonial ancestors predisposed early Mormon converts to embrace the "radical" message of Joseph Smith Jr. and his new church. Utilizing a unique set of meticulously compiled genealogical data, Rust uncovers the ancestors of early church members throughout what we understand as the radical segment of the Protestan Reformation. Coming from backgrounds in the Antinomians, Seekers, Anabaptists, Quakers, and the Family of Love, many colonial ancestors of the church's early members had been ostracized from their communities. Expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, some were whipped, mutilated, or even hanged for their beliefs. Rust shows how family lore can be passed down through the generations, and can ultimately shape the outlook of future generations. [/QUOTE]Now, I was doing research on ancestors of some of my Mormon ancestors so I guess their mention in this book shows the Mr. Rust may have a point. Or does he? What kind of people were coming to the New England area during early colonial times? Many were seeking to worship God as they chose. Many were being persecuted in their native country for their religious beliefs. Would not a majority of those who came be considered "radical" in their beliefs? Many of these ancestors of mine are not only ancestors of my Mormon families by also ancestors of many prominent leaders of this country as well as many present day non-Mormons.

I found the premise of the book interesting when I first read it. I think the religious atmosphere of Joseph Smith's time definitely was a contributing factor to and conducive to the restoration. Joseph Smith's "radical" religious background probably was what provided an atmosphere of religious exploration that encouraged Joseph Smith's actions. Others who would become followers of the Church would also come from backgrounds of religious exploration, with an openness to check out a "new" religion. However, there was a lot of religious exploration going on at the time with a majority not joining up with Joseph Smith's church.

As I explore the description of this book, the less I think Mr. Rust has a point. I don't know Mr. Rust's intent as I haven't read the book but just reading the premise I wonder if he is trying to show a defect in the ancestors of early Mormons that predisposed them to believe Joseph Smith. I can't go along with that considering those same ancestors belong to others that would not become followers of the Mormon faith or what may be considered a "radical" faith. Even if Mr. Rust is not disparaging the reasoning behind the choice of early Mormons to believe and follow Joseph Smith, it is faulty for the same reason - lack of uniqueness in ancestors of early Mormons compared to your "average" non-radical early American.

If anyone has read this book, please comment on what you thought of it. Like I said, I haven't had the chance to read it having just discovered its existence. Perhaps it would be worth the read. Perhaps not.

And then I added the following:

I missed a critical sentence in the description of the book:

...Rust shows how family lore can be passed down through the generations, and can ultimately shape the outlook of future generations. This, he argues, extends the historical role of Mormons by giving their early story significant implications for understanding the larger context of American colonial history....  

I don't see the historical role of Mormons being given any more significance from this information.  The story of American colonial history does provide information as to why it was conducive to the restoration, IMO.  Maybe looking at the history of Mormon ancestors can help us understand American colonial history but that history is not unique to Mormons.