Hunter Peterson’s Reviews > Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling > Status Update

What do you mean by this? What is an apologist history? What’s propelling the breakup?

It’s impossible for a historian not to offer up some conjecture; there would be no possible analysis of the history otherwise. But I think I am, for the moment, less interested in an apologetic history—a history which not only seeks to offer its reader all of the available information on and of Joseph, but also seeks to justify and reason with that information for his behalf—for the same reason I’m not very interested in reading an exposé of the prophet. I think I’d rather just get the facts and let them stew, rather than read about their justification or their condemnation. I don’t know if I believe that to be a historians call or not. I’d like to be unable to tell whether or not my author of Latter-day Saint history is a Latter-day Saint or not.

That being said, I think Bushman adds a lot of helpful context to the history of the time period, and I found many of his arguments to be fascinating. I’m not putting it down for now just because he writes from a place of convincing his reader. I just need a break. After reading “American Zion” and “Kingdom of Nauvoo,” this would be the 3rd church history book of the year, and church history can be just as jarring as it is fascinating. Some of its more controversial aspects tends to stir up some anger or incredulity in me, so I’m just taking a little break, so I can read some other stuff for a moment. Additionally, although Bushman’s scholarship is impressive, it’s certainly not a page turner!

Love seeing the inside of your mind. Excited for more reviews!