I have read most of the book. I've also read
No Man Knows My History
I like Bushman but he tends to gloss over some things. For me it was a open discussion of things that have been covered up and whitewashed by the church. We simply don't talk about these things anywhere. 95% of church members don't know that Joseph practiced Polygamy, that he kept it hidden from the public, the church members, and his wife for several years. They don't know that he practiced polyandry and married several girls who were still in their teens.
The Wives of Joseph Smith
One of my favorite stories from the book is about during Zions Camp where the Prophet and a member of the camp got into a fight about a dog. I can't remember the details, but Joseph ends up throwing the camp bugle at the guy. Made me laugh very hard.
I also think he has done a "ok" job showing the problems with the Book of Abraham. While Nibley has tried to discredit the docs found in the Met, it is hard to dispute the mere fact that the fragments shown in the BoA, have nothing at all to do with Abraham, but are merely funeral pics from Egypt. There is much better display of this at the
wiki site which shows both an LDS as well as a non-LDS view.
Someone else wrote the following on another space on this site, I think.
Quote:
In my opinion RSR is well written for both a general audience and a believing audience. The general audience can read it from one vantage point, as Bushman wrote it from a Karen Armstrong-like view of Mohammed. They don't have to be convinced to believe or not-believe. They read it as an interesting historical view from the vantage point of a believer. For the believing LDS person, it is an apologetic, not as bad as FAIR or FARMS, but still an apologetic. Bushman provides the arguments of plausibility on which apologetics are founded.
Apologists in general will say, "Think in gray, so long as it supports the position that the church is true." They are guilty of the "Pink Unicorn" argument. Effectively saying, "There is a giant pink unicorn that lives on the dark side of the moon. Since you cannot prove it does not exist, it means that it does. Therfore it is true that a giant pink unicorn lives of the dark side of the moon." Of course this is a fallacious argument, but one on which apologists lean heavily and for which believing members who want the church to be true easily fall.
Confirmation bias is a tough thing to self moderate, even if you understand it. For most people, they don't understand how they misinterpret data and information, leading to erroneous conclusions.
|
IMHO, I think the best thing you can do is to listen to the interviews that John Dehlin does with Bro. Bushman.
Library at StayLDS.com