Believing History - Bushman

[_truth dancer]

Has anyone read Bushman's new book, Believing History: LDS essays?

Just curious if it is worth reading...

Thanks for any opinion,

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

Has anyone read Bushman's new book, Believing History: LDS essays?

Just curious if it is worth reading...

Thanks for any opinion,

~dancer~

I have the book and started the first essay but have not got beyond it. It is not a cheap book. I hope to get back to it. I have not read enought to opine.

[_Inconceivable]

Has anyone read Bushman's new book, Believing History: LDS essays?

Just curious if it is worth reading...

Thanks for any opinion,

~dancer~

I have the book and started the first essay but have not got beyond it. It is not a cheap book. I hope to get back to it. I have not read enought to opine.

It was given to me by the Stake president. I got through a few essays but put it on the shelf.

I've drawn the conclusion that Joseph Smith (and those he surrounded himself with) lived duplicitous and decieptful lives. I've found myself impatient with historians that have drawn the opposite conclusion that he was and is a prophet of a loving, honest and even righteous God.

[_truth dancer]

Thanks Jason...

Hi Inconceivable...

I've drawn the conclusion that Joseph Smith (and those he surrounded himself with) lived duplicitous and decieptful lives. I've found myself impatient with historians that have drawn the opposite conclusion that he was and is a prophet of a loving, honest and even righteous God.

Just curious but when you state you are, "impatient with historians who have drawn the opposite conclusion," is it because you think they are less than honest or you don't understand how they got to their conclusion, or something else?

In Bushman's book, do you think he was writing to bring understanding or to paint a helpful picture in the world of LDS apologetics?

Thanks for your thoughts,

~dancer~

[_Inconceivable]

Thanks Jason...

Hi Inconceivable...

I've drawn the conclusion that Joseph Smith (and those he surrounded himself with) lived duplicitous and decieptful lives. I've found myself impatient with historians that have drawn the opposite conclusion that he was and is a prophet of a loving, honest and even righteous God.

Just curious but when you state you are, "impatient with historians who have drawn the opposite conclusion," is it because you think they are less than honest or you don't understand how they got to their conclusion, or something else?

In Bushman's book, do you think he was writing to bring understanding or to paint a helpful picture in the world of LDS apologetics?

Thanks for your thoughts,

~dancer~

Well, I've had a copy of the History of the church by BH Roberts, JofD's , Joseph Smith Journals for 10-18 years. When I read amazing things that should have made me sick to my stomach (or at least send milk through my nose), instead I would fall back on my "testimony" that somehow:

1) ..If I only knew the whole story - that crazy event would make perfect and justifiable sense
2) ..If I were only as wise and inspired as those involved I would see clearly (that made me feel even at more awe at the majesty Joseph Smith to be able to "handle" this stuff - Truman G. Madsen's Joseph Smith CD's are a perfect example of this sort of hero worship)
3) ..Maybe this was a typo or the scribes were somehow malevolent
4) ..I know Joseph Smith is a prophet, families are forever, my bishop is inspired, the Book of Mormon is the word of God, I felt the spirit, it will all work out.

It's like history was a bunch of round holes. To make sense out of it I was going around with a bunch of square pegs trying to wack them in. I looked back and began to see the futility. It finally occurred to me that the history is what it is.

I see TBM historians (and apologists) in the same way. Except after they cram the peg in, they slap on some cheap paint. I now find them mostly a waste of time.