Joseph Smith "A Rough Rolling Stone" Biography.

[_Jason Bourne]

Bushman did not disclose anything new. He just put a spin on Jos. Smith's foibles that were already know to the critics.

Oh of course not.

The book was a shoddy piece of apologetic spin. I expect such a balanced conclusion from you TAK.

[_TAK]

Bushman did not disclose anything new. He just put a spin on Jos. Smith's foibles that were already know to the critics.

Oh of course not.

The book was a shoddy piece of apologetic spin. I expect such balanced conclusion from you TAK.

I did not call it shoddy. I said earlier.. from what I read it was eloquent apologetics.

So what did he disclose in his book that was unknown before?

[_Jason Bourne]

Exactly my point. Bushman is open that the book is an apologetic work which it very much is. Of course we are all biased. (And yeah, that part about money digging is a good example of what I am taking about).

I'm just making the point that if someone wants to learn about Joseph Smith, Bushman's bio, while a step in the right direction is still very much written to convince members the LDS church is the one and only true church upon the earth, and that Joseph Smith was a great and noble man who was called by God to restore the true church upon the earth.

I'm pretty sure Bushman would be agree with me.

I believe a non believer or just a neutral person could read that book and not conclude that it "is still very much written to convince members the LDS church is the one and only true church upon the earth, and that Joseph Smith was a great and noble man who was called by God to restore the true church upon the earth."

[_Jason Bourne]

I did not call it shoddy. I said earlier.. from what I read it was eloquent apologetics.

So what did he disclose in his book that was unknown before?

As noted it was good book from a believers perspective. It was open and honest. If it did no trash Joseph Smith enough for you too bad. How much of it did you read?

[_Jersey Girl]

Isn't it true that in nearly 100% of the cases, Bushman chooses pretty much every explanation except the most likely one?

No.

[_Jersey Girl]

Bushman did not disclose anything new. He just put a spin on Jos. Smith's foibles that were already know to the critics.

How, where and regarding what issues did Bushman put a spin job on those? Can you be more specific?

[_Dr. Shades]

How, where and regarding what issues did Bushman put a spin job on those? Can you be more specific?

The one where he described Joseph tricking people out of their money by "glass looking" as a training exercise for future prophethood.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jason,

I believe a non believer or just a neutral person could read that book and not conclude that it "is still very much written to convince members the LDS church is the one and only true church upon the earth, and that Joseph Smith was a great and noble man who was called by God to restore the true church upon the earth."

I disagree (surprise... LOL)!

For example, I don't think anyone but a believer could possible buy into the idea that Joseph Smith was practicing to be a prophet as he engaged in his looking glass/seer stone adventures.

And most everyone other than TBMs don't buy Joseph Smith's excuses for screwing girls and women, in spite of all the apologetic spin. I truly think only believers who really want to excuse Joseph Smith can accept it, just like TBMs don't buy Jim Jones' or David Koresh's excuses.

However it also may be that some neutral folk do not see it as apologetic but only because they don't know the full story.

[_cinepro]

Is this worth a read? And which viewpoint does it take?

Unless significant new "information" about Joseph Smith's life comes to light, I don't expect to ever read a better bio than Bushman's. It's a really good read.

[_Jason Bourne]

I disagree (surprise... LOL)!

For example, I don't think anyone but a believer could possible buy into the idea that Joseph Smith was practicing to be a prophet as he engaged in his looking glass/seer stone adventures.

It has been two years since I read the book. This was the only place I recall he made an plea to a defense that seemed nonsensical. In fact I do not recall a lot of explaining away. It seems that most of the book presents information without a lot of explaining.

And most everyone other than TBMs don't buy Joseph Smith's excuses for screwing girls and women, in spite of all the apologetic spin. I truly think only believers who really want to excuse Joseph Smith can accept it, just like TBMs don't buy Jim Jones' or David Koresh's excuses.

Can you show me Bushman's defense in favor of polygamy in the book. What did he argue? If I recall he just presented it and let the chips fall where they may.

However it also may be that some neutral folk do not see it as apologetic but only because they don't know the full story.

Bushman does a fair job at giving the full story and he also references other sources.

But Let's ask Jersey. She is non LDS. Jersey did you see this book as simply a book that discloses some of the difficult issues and then puts an apologetic spin on things?

[/quote]