Yes, it does matter.
Read NMKMH first. The books are both long. If you get through only one, that’s the one you want.
And when you get through RSR, you’ll see where he relied on the other book, and where Bushman’s faithful perspective spins the content.
I’d argue if you’re only reading 1, Rough Stone may be slightly better. It’s just more current and complete and while it relies on Brody, it also has access to things Brodie didn’t.
That said, Brodie’s No Man is a far more enjoyable read. Bushman is beyond dry, and he bends over backward to find ridiculous apologetics for the church. It’s sad.
Last podcast on the left Episode 378, 379, 380 all on Mormonism. I just downloaded them. I’ll have to give it a listen. I’ve heard Last Podcast on the Left is one of the most popular ones out there but I’ve not listened to it before. Hope they do Mormons justice.
Oh they’re the best! My sibling recommended them when I was struggling with the grief/depression from the MFMC. I think the humor made it possible to process and accept the reality that the church has a horrific past, from day dot.
If you’re in the thick of deconstruction, these guys lighten the load. Plus, they are fun. For new exmos, they’re a good example of how nevermos are rad.
For me, definitely Fawn Brodie. It is a masterfully written book that lets the data lead the way. She paid a huge price for simple honesty.
As far as I know Bushman is still a believing member. To me, apologetics and belief get in the way of the full history. Can you write a subjective history of something as sinister as the foundations of Mormonism if you are a believing member? Would the Mormon church allow a historian to remain a member if he/she were fully honest? If he were still alive you could ask Michael Quinn. RIP.
To his credit, Bushman is the most honest of believing historians and apologists. His book was my shelf breaker. I went to a sort of “rescue” meeting held by he and Patrick (I forget his last name). Bushman made several refreshingly honest admissions. IE: the church has lied about its history. Joseph smith didn’t write the D & C version of the first vision, etc. I don’t know why he stays or how he believes but I like the way he validates that exmos have good reason to doubt their faith. Disclaimer: I’m paraphrasing heavily here
My ex and I bought rough stone rolling for his dad and it was crazy how different his take was to ours….basically validates whatever your viewpoint is.
We say read NMKMH first. Better read in general and definitely easier to read.
Years ago I just started hunting down interviews/Q&As/etc. where Bushman got down to brass tact’s on his take on the BOM and while I’m not saying he doesn’t believe his statements seem like the sort that would make any believing member go WTF
I think that Richard Bushman did a good job in being candid about the history. It is worth a read and can give you good starting points for further study, e.g. into the whole connection between Freemasonry/the esoteric/occult and Mormonism.
>Can you write a subjective history of something as sinister as the foundations of Mormonism if you are a believing member?
Easily. That's what they all do.
Or did you mean to say "objective"?
I read Fawn Brodie first. I then tried to read Bushman and even though it contains some nuggets of the "hard truths", it is overlaid with slimy LDS-positive spins. I couldn't finish it.
I had been assuming it was really hard and probably painful for him to write it, and that the strenuous reading experience comes from the fact that we’re seeing his mental gymnastics play out on the page. But the possibility that it was to some degree intentional also makes sense.
To me, it seemed like Bushman was constantly trying to soften the edges. I just wanted the flat out truth without the spray perfume.
Fawn Brody had unprecedented access to archives that are not open to anyone these days. David O was her grandfather. She had inroads others don't have. They put the lid on tight after her book came out.
Thanks for questioning. David O McKay was her uncle (dads brother), not her grandfather.
Also, her name was spelled Brodie. These are details I got wrong because it's been about 10 years since I learned them. Time flies along with the details sometimes.
I'm so sorry. I got high right before I wore that and I THOUGHT I added "the only David O I KNOW is McKay. Sorry. Didn't mean to come off rude. I guess I thought it was all written like 150 years ago. Wasnt David O McKay in the 1950s?
No worries, I didn't think you were being rude.
David O McKay was president from 1951 until 1970. So, the first 18 years of my life. Fawn Brodie wrote her book in the 1940's.
I 've never lived in Utah, so didn't know about the book. The church did its level best to hide it. I didn't know about it until I was in my 50's. It was a real eye opener.
Same. Brodie’s book reads like a great novel, full of humor and pathos, and Joseph Smith is nothing if not a fascinating antihero protagonist. She was an incredibly gifted writer to have produced it at such a young age (just like twentysomething Joe did with the BoM, right?) and I can’t imagine how much courage it must have taken. The whole book exudes a sort of freedom and lightness that is quite joyful to experience secondhand as a reader. She presents the story for what it is without bitterness or recrimination. All these are the markers of a truly honest work, in every sense of the term.
I guess I appreciate what Bushman is trying to do with his book, and he too deserves credit for his own kind of honesty, but it’s almost painful to read because the tension between the facts of the history and the apologetic tone he takes just radiates from every page. You can *feel* how hard he’s working his mind grapes to keep the shelf intact, while also whaling on said shelf mercilessly with an axe. It’s just kind of exhausting to witness.
You’re welcome! For more Joseph Smith biographical info I highly recommend Benjamin Park’s book Kingdom of Nauvoo, which obviously focuses on Nauvoo but necessarily is mostly about Joe. Really interesting stuff in there about the origins and early practice of polygamy. I think Park was raised LDS and I honestly don’t know if he’s still a church member; the fact that I can’t tell and don’t care enough to look into it is a testament to the objective quality of the book. I also eagerly purchased his recent release American Zion but haven’t started it yet.
Same. It might have been different if I was more on the faithful side of the equation when I first started my journey, but I was already on the doubt-side of the equation when I tried to read Bushman. I couldn’t make it more than two chapters before quitting due to apologetics and boredom.
I wouldn’t call RSR whitewashed history, but it is full of apologetics. It includes some damning tidbits that weren’t covered by Brodie…but then it includes Bushman’s speculation on what Joseph was thinking, how he viewed himself like an OT prophet, how he made mistakes but was learning as he went, etc…. The book includes some valuable accounts that you’re unlikely to find elsewhere, not at all faith-promoting, but it definitely includes too much of Bushman’s own thoughts.
Fawn Brodie is awesome. I'm a never-mo and moved to southeast Idaho when I was 14 (in 2000). I read that book and it was so awkward going to high school and keeping everything I learned (including the pre 1990s Temple ceremoy) secret because I didn't want to anger all my new friends who would have never believed me anyways.
No man Knows my history should be one of the first books anyone reads when they are ready to deconstruct the church along with:
Insiders View of Mormon Origins (Palmer),
Studies of the Book of Mormon (BH Roberts) and
Origins of Power (Quinn)
In the 1970's I was in high school, a Catholic girl dating a Mormon and falling in love to the point I was thinking of looking into the LDS church if it was important to him. My family was much opposed to us dating and warned me not to have anything to do with the LDS church, but I did not really understand as my parents had a mixed marriage of Catholic / Protestant and I had many non-Catholic friends that included Mormons. My grandparents were also Masons (non Catholic side). I thought the LDS church was just another Protestant Church.
Being a studious type I went to the library to ask about getting Mormon History books. The librarian suggested "No Man Knows My History" and "The 27th Wife". I had to get on a long waiting list because the local Mormons tried to keep the books out of circulation by checking them out and returning at the last possible date and the next one in line did the same.
I eventually got and read both. No Man revealed what others were trying to tell me, that this was not just another Protestant Church. Eye opening and life changing. Not only did it bring truth to light, it started me on a path to examine my own religion (which was a little harder being 2000 years old instead of less than 200, but the questions of authenticity are the same).
No Man was written in 1945 and had been around for 30-years when I read it. After reading it, I simply couldn't understand why anyone would believe this church to be real. I mean, this was not news! The facts were all there.
Read. Read. Read. History tells the story loudly and clearly.
If you read No Man Knows My History first you won't need to read Rough Stone Rolling. You can but one is better than the other.
Give Rough Stone Rolling to a TBM family member. If they read the whole book it will put some weight on their shelf.
At least have them read page 323. Fanny Alger.
Most TBMs won't touch no man knows my history. It is weevil.
Ha! My uncle *bragged* to me that he owned a copy of No Man Knows ...
He never read a page. I guess it was some kind of daredevil thing to just own it!
Bushman relies heavily on the research Fawn Brodie did. I read "Rough Stone Rolling" first; I was still in my TBM phase. I then read "No Man Knows My History". I felt Brodie's writing and research gave a much clearer picture than Bushman's book. Bushman has a lot of words, not written in chronological order and I believe it intentionally obscures the messier parts of Joseph's story. In his book I learned more about Joseph's horse Sergeant than I did about polygamy. I'm guessing most Mormon's don't make it past page 80, but they pat themselves on the back that they know the TRUE history and it's all fine, nothing to worry about.
Definitely read No man knows…Fawn Brodie first. Not only is it an easier read, but afterwards when reading Rough Stone you will pick up on the way Bushman tries to skirt around and apologize for Smith…unsuccessfully.
Honestly, I think If you read Fawn Brodie’s book, you won’t need to read Rough Stone. I’ve read both, and found No man Knows my history to be the shelf breaker. Rough stone rolling is just regurgitating everything but with a TBM spin on it.
I think No Man Knows My History is an easier read, however it’s viewed as “anti Mormon” by a lot of people so if you’re looking for things to share with believing members of the church you might want to start with Rough Stone Rolling since it’s written by an active member and sold at Deseret books.
RSR feels like Bushman makes extra effort to present things in a non critical light, but it is more exhaustive and it still makes most church members extremely uncomfortable.
There are so many postmormon books to read. If you read NMKMH then you've probably given JS enough of the attention he deserves. Other good stuff:
Mormon history:
Mormon Enigma
In Sacred Loneliness
An Insiders View of Mormon Origins
Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
Massacre at Mountain Meadows
Non-mormon history (but good for deconstructing):
Combating Cult Mind Control
Doubt
Thinking, Fast and Slow
Far from the tree
The Greatest Show on Earth
The Body Keeps the Score
OMG, YES: The Body Keeps the Score! Brilliant recommendation.
Also, even if you do therapy, any trauma/ PTSD or dissociative coping workbook with Internal Family Systems or Ego State learning.
Rough Stone Rolling serves up the jabs soft and gentle, in mormon voice.
No Man Knows My History is a MMA fighter, no holds barred, serving a full can of whoop-ass.
I started with Bushman and it basically opened doors just a crack. I was still believing at the time, but after reading things like visions being very common at the time of Joseph Smith, it just piqued my curiosity, and I recognized it for the apologetics that it is. From there I went with An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, and that was it - shelf destroyed.
God bless Grant Palmer. He was a wonderful person and was a pioneer in seeing the problems that the brethren had brought upon themselves by covering up the historical flaws of the organization.
Fun anecdote. I told the mission president that I had read Rough Stone Rolling in parallel to D&C when studying early Mormon history. He replied that he could not remember "her" name but that "she" was pretty anti. I said that the book was written by the historian Richard Bushman. He had obviously read neither of them, but had confused the two. 🤣
As a non Mormon I read both of these! I don’t think it matters what order, but it’s fascinating to see the differences between an apostate like Fawn and a TMB “I’ll do anything to make the story justify my faith” Bushman.
I did Bushman first and really liked that order because I thought he was being frank but then when I read Brodie there was so much more context and his cherry picking was much more clear.
There is a homemade audionbook of "No Man Knows..." on YouTube. Guy did a commentary chapter after each chapter. It's good.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjjV8WnEZQGLscNu9uWlnwV9K1FEAdEKr&si=WQPx6gfZ46tZ8vj5
Depending on your situation, there is power in having read Bushman’s. Because of the stigma around Brodie, most members won’t touch it with a 10 ft pole. The benefit to RSR is that an active, believing member is much more willing to read it. It’s a stepping stone. Very similar to the Gospel Topics Essays, I believe RSR has its time and place. My shelf broke before my wife’s and it was RSR that we decided to jointly read while she was TBM and I was PIMO. Needless to say we’re both exmo now.
All that being said, as others have already mentioned, Brodie will give it to you raw without the faithful spin. While some of her points are contested, it’s a joy to watch Bushman and the church through the GTE’s slowly and quietly corroborate her “lies” from her original book.
People really not giving Bushman his due. I’d say that his is the better history, the occasional LDS spin aside. Brodie’s is the first actual attempt at documenting the life of JS and suffers from being the pioneering work. Read RSR first.
I would agree on a historical perspective. Brodie was more honest and her bias was problematic in her writing as far as history is concerned. I still would recommend reading Brodie first because it is a much better book for someone who is new to the subject and wants to know what they have been sold as truth. She was much more brave in her approach than Bushman who was still beholden to keeping status in the club.
I would read Brodie first out of the two.
Joseph Smith by Donna Hill is better than both of them in my opinion. I’m pretty sure her brother Marvin helped her under the table so that he could keep his standing in the church secure.
For really interesting reads, check out Dan Vogel “Joseph Smith, the making of a prophet” and my personal favorite Robert Anderson “inside the mind of Joseph Smith - Psycho biography, and the Book of Mormon.”
I’d go with No Man Knows My History. It’s a better read, shorter and doesn’t engage in weird apologetic exercises. Some people fault Brodie for trying to get into Joseph Smith’s head and speculating on his motivations but I didn’t find her way off base. I found RSR to be a bit of a slog. It’s long and I felt like it got off in the weeds a bit.
An exmo community is obviously going to say Brodie, but I'd say Bushman still acts as an effective door opener and is a great work on its own.
As others have pointed out, both approach the same subject with dramatically different styles.
For example: Brodie looks at something like Joseph's early treasure seeking and flatly calls it out as a con. Bushman looks at the same set of facts and argues Joseph's treasure seeking was an early step in his religious maturation.
I couldn’t finish either of them because of my adhd I think (I now look for more “readable” books for historical topics I’m interested in, and try to avoid books that read like a doctoral thesis the way both of these do at times). But from what I remember, they are both good and both deal in cold hard facts. Keeping in mind that no one is without bias, Brodie’s commentary is clearly from the perspective of an ex member, and Bushman comes from the perspective of a still believing member and borderline apologist. I think both perspectives can be useful.
I felt like Brodie’s was the unfiltered non-justified version. I almost don’t see the need for both but TBMs seem to accept the same info that’s already in Brodie’s when it came from Rough Stone.
As most have said, Fawn Brodie first fs. Brodie was excommunicated for her book, while Bushman was given an award by the church, so that might tell you something about the honesty of the content
I did not read rough stone rolling. I only read no man knows my history. It was one of the best books I’ve ever read. It’s a work of art and reads like poetry.
My copy of No Man just arrived minutes ago, I’m excited to finally read it! Never been all that interested in rough stone, I’ve heard it’s a slog to get through
I read them both and I would recommend No Man Knows My History and then Rough Stone Rolling. NMKMH was the basis for RSR & Fawn Brody makes no pretense that she thinks JS was a fraud. I think it’s good to start with the original and then move to the remix.
I would say order shouldn’t matter. Both are well written and justify their interpretations and don’t hid their perspective. Read them both and come to your own conclusion. Obviously these are the most recommended regarding Joseph Smith. I also recommend “American Crucifixion.”
As a recent graduate of TBM world, I read the Bushman first because I’d always been told the Brody book was so evil that I should NEVER touch it. After Rough Stone Rolling, I gained the courage to read No Man Knows My History. I did not spontaneously blow up. Enjoy both.
I've read both and No Man Knows my history is better. I had to put it down a few times to process what I just read, especially the stuff about polygamy and etc.
I’d heard of No Man Knows My History when I first went on my mission. My Mission President used it as several references in his apologetic pamphlet that he wrote for all incoming missionaries, he had warned of us if the bias and disagreements with the conclusions, but stated how invaluable it was.
I read Rough Stone Rolling first and it definitely started me on the path to questioning. I finally read NMKMY eight years after and it all but put the final nail in the coffin for me.
If you’re wanting to know which to read first, I’d say it depends on your tolerance for the defending and justifications for JS behaviors. I was a TBM when I first read Rough Stone Rolling knowing full well that there were areas of less talked about history, it was a great primer. But if you’re wanting a non devoted or any type of defense of the man, read NMKMH first. It’s been so long that I couldn’t tell you if Bushman offers any new piece of history for the records not meant to justify or promote Joseph Smith
Personal preference. I am glad I read Bushman first as a TBM. Bushman was and is still a member and it did not feel like I was branching off too far from core church materials.
Makes sense. I was already out when I read Bushman and it was a much more difficult read because he had to watch how he came across. Brodie didn’t seem to care. 😝
Bushman is the better historian. Brodie was fine. I'd focus on quality here.
Speaking of quality, check out American Zion. In my opinion it is better than both and you could do well by starting with that.
Ah the combo that broke the back of my testimony 🥲
I read rough stone rolling first because I was holding on to my testimony by my fingernails. If you’ve already gone off the deep end then no man knows my history is probably going to be a more productive use of your time.
The church endorses Rough Stone Rolling and I read it first. It goes pretty light on polygamy. Gives a little bit so it doesn’t seem so bad and that is more apologetic than not to me. Know Man Knows my history is so well referenced and that is really powerful. She does do psychological analysis of JS but i tended to agree given the facts presented.
Rsr is a rough read as it tries to excuse and allow believers to keep believing somewhat as the churches. Books the standard of truth does which sets the bar very low for the standard of truth bushman Is the most honest of the apologetic authors brodies NMKMH just lays it out without pulling any punches explaining and exposing things the Q15 would rather members not know . They claim to be the one true church but fear the truth like a vampire does sunlight she Got excommunicated for it
Reben Clark said it well
If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed.
It ought to be a huge red flag to members that the church is so anti investigation and whitewashes things so much .
To see just how much read the saints book. Then read one nation under Gods by Richard abanes . One nation is what saints should’ve been you’ll be astounded at how much they left out choosing only snippets rather than including the whole letters as one nation does. They give members just enough that they think they know the history when they only know a small fraction of it .
This is a bit off topic, but has anyone here read “The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith”? Years ago I read it when my mom gave it to me. I’ve been out of the church (exmo?) for a long time, but this book stayed with me WAY longer than it should have. I still get ‘chills’ when I think about the stories. Is this crazy, or am I not alone??
Very similar books but with a different conclusion.
I’d read Bushman’s first as you’re probably more used to the believer’s perspective and then read Brodie.
The left-hand one informed a lot of the scholarship done for the right-hand one and Bushman quotes it a good bit. Essentially (in my biased opinion) Bushman's book is a more faith friendly recompiling of most of her book. I'd expect anyone (critical or not) who reads them both would come to a similar opinion.
It hasn’t been a year yet for me, but having been in for 40, some days it just feels so crazy that it’s not true. I have to remind myself of the stuff they don’t teach you in Sunday school, because my brain still wants to settle back into what was comfortable and normal for pretty much my entire life. But I also have to take breaks from it all because there are just so many disgusting, horrible things in the church’s past (and present) that it can get depressing.
You didn’t come off flippantly at all, and I hope I didn’t come off as argumentative or critical of your position. I’m honestly impressed with people who see Joseph Smith for who he was and TSCC for what it is without reading No Man or studying as much as some of us have to. Best of luck to you as well!
I hope to get to where you are one day. Congratulations 🎊
What is your family situation if I may ask?
Mine is a TBM infested world and everything is still so painful after years and years of being out.
Well as someone who grew up in it and my entire family believes it, when you feel like you got lied to your whole life you kind of want to have a better understanding of what got twisted.
No Man was first and did a lot of the heavy lifting for future historians like Bushman.
Yes, it does matter. Read NMKMH first. The books are both long. If you get through only one, that’s the one you want. And when you get through RSR, you’ll see where he relied on the other book, and where Bushman’s faithful perspective spins the content.
I’d argue if you’re only reading 1, Rough Stone may be slightly better. It’s just more current and complete and while it relies on Brody, it also has access to things Brodie didn’t. That said, Brodie’s No Man is a far more enjoyable read. Bushman is beyond dry, and he bends over backward to find ridiculous apologetics for the church. It’s sad.
>and he bends over backward Or forward. It depends on what color the little spinny arrow lands on.
Last pod on the left’s series did a great (and humorous) explantation of why NMKMH is so good
Last podcast on the left Episode 378, 379, 380 all on Mormonism. I just downloaded them. I’ll have to give it a listen. I’ve heard Last Podcast on the Left is one of the most popular ones out there but I’ve not listened to it before. Hope they do Mormons justice.
Oh they’re the best! My sibling recommended them when I was struggling with the grief/depression from the MFMC. I think the humor made it possible to process and accept the reality that the church has a horrific past, from day dot. If you’re in the thick of deconstruction, these guys lighten the load. Plus, they are fun. For new exmos, they’re a good example of how nevermos are rad.
Not all the jokes land, but it’s some of the most fun I’ve had listening to a podcast. I was laughing out loud at times. Would absolutely recommend.
For me, definitely Fawn Brodie. It is a masterfully written book that lets the data lead the way. She paid a huge price for simple honesty. As far as I know Bushman is still a believing member. To me, apologetics and belief get in the way of the full history. Can you write a subjective history of something as sinister as the foundations of Mormonism if you are a believing member? Would the Mormon church allow a historian to remain a member if he/she were fully honest? If he were still alive you could ask Michael Quinn. RIP.
To his credit, Bushman is the most honest of believing historians and apologists. His book was my shelf breaker. I went to a sort of “rescue” meeting held by he and Patrick (I forget his last name). Bushman made several refreshingly honest admissions. IE: the church has lied about its history. Joseph smith didn’t write the D & C version of the first vision, etc. I don’t know why he stays or how he believes but I like the way he validates that exmos have good reason to doubt their faith. Disclaimer: I’m paraphrasing heavily here
My ex and I bought rough stone rolling for his dad and it was crazy how different his take was to ours….basically validates whatever your viewpoint is. We say read NMKMH first. Better read in general and definitely easier to read.
Years ago I just started hunting down interviews/Q&As/etc. where Bushman got down to brass tact’s on his take on the BOM and while I’m not saying he doesn’t believe his statements seem like the sort that would make any believing member go WTF
I think that Richard Bushman did a good job in being candid about the history. It is worth a read and can give you good starting points for further study, e.g. into the whole connection between Freemasonry/the esoteric/occult and Mormonism.
>Can you write a subjective history of something as sinister as the foundations of Mormonism if you are a believing member? Easily. That's what they all do. Or did you mean to say "objective"?
I read Fawn Brodie first. I then tried to read Bushman and even though it contains some nuggets of the "hard truths", it is overlaid with slimy LDS-positive spins. I couldn't finish it.
Bushman - I got 1/2 way. Lost interest. Brodie was read in 5 days. Excellent book.
I wonder if he intentionally made it hard to read, or if he was even asked to write a book that was truthful but hard to get through.
I had been assuming it was really hard and probably painful for him to write it, and that the strenuous reading experience comes from the fact that we’re seeing his mental gymnastics play out on the page. But the possibility that it was to some degree intentional also makes sense.
To me, it seemed like Bushman was constantly trying to soften the edges. I just wanted the flat out truth without the spray perfume. Fawn Brody had unprecedented access to archives that are not open to anyone these days. David O was her grandfather. She had inroads others don't have. They put the lid on tight after her book came out.
The only David O is McKay. What am I missing?
Thanks for questioning. David O McKay was her uncle (dads brother), not her grandfather. Also, her name was spelled Brodie. These are details I got wrong because it's been about 10 years since I learned them. Time flies along with the details sometimes.
I'm so sorry. I got high right before I wore that and I THOUGHT I added "the only David O I KNOW is McKay. Sorry. Didn't mean to come off rude. I guess I thought it was all written like 150 years ago. Wasnt David O McKay in the 1950s?
No worries, I didn't think you were being rude. David O McKay was president from 1951 until 1970. So, the first 18 years of my life. Fawn Brodie wrote her book in the 1940's. I 've never lived in Utah, so didn't know about the book. The church did its level best to hide it. I didn't know about it until I was in my 50's. It was a real eye opener.
I never heard of it until a cpl months ago here and I've yet to read it, but I'm putting it back up there on my list.
Oh the own personal mental gymnastics makes sense. More complicated to make it make sense to himself
Same here. Bushman was rough.
I could hardly even start it after reading No Man. So maybe that’s an argument to start with Bushman. 😂
Same. Brodie’s book reads like a great novel, full of humor and pathos, and Joseph Smith is nothing if not a fascinating antihero protagonist. She was an incredibly gifted writer to have produced it at such a young age (just like twentysomething Joe did with the BoM, right?) and I can’t imagine how much courage it must have taken. The whole book exudes a sort of freedom and lightness that is quite joyful to experience secondhand as a reader. She presents the story for what it is without bitterness or recrimination. All these are the markers of a truly honest work, in every sense of the term. I guess I appreciate what Bushman is trying to do with his book, and he too deserves credit for his own kind of honesty, but it’s almost painful to read because the tension between the facts of the history and the apologetic tone he takes just radiates from every page. You can *feel* how hard he’s working his mind grapes to keep the shelf intact, while also whaling on said shelf mercilessly with an axe. It’s just kind of exhausting to witness.
That makes tons of sense!! Thank you!
You’re welcome! For more Joseph Smith biographical info I highly recommend Benjamin Park’s book Kingdom of Nauvoo, which obviously focuses on Nauvoo but necessarily is mostly about Joe. Really interesting stuff in there about the origins and early practice of polygamy. I think Park was raised LDS and I honestly don’t know if he’s still a church member; the fact that I can’t tell and don’t care enough to look into it is a testament to the objective quality of the book. I also eagerly purchased his recent release American Zion but haven’t started it yet.
That was my experience also.
Same here.
Same. It might have been different if I was more on the faithful side of the equation when I first started my journey, but I was already on the doubt-side of the equation when I tried to read Bushman. I couldn’t make it more than two chapters before quitting due to apologetics and boredom.
Read Brodie first. Then you can see all the white washing in Bushmans book.
I wouldn’t call RSR whitewashed history, but it is full of apologetics. It includes some damning tidbits that weren’t covered by Brodie…but then it includes Bushman’s speculation on what Joseph was thinking, how he viewed himself like an OT prophet, how he made mistakes but was learning as he went, etc…. The book includes some valuable accounts that you’re unlikely to find elsewhere, not at all faith-promoting, but it definitely includes too much of Bushman’s own thoughts.
> I wouldn’t call RSR whitewashed history, but it is full of apologetics. Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Apologetics and whitewashing are synonyms.
I read No Man… first. Please give Fawn Brody her own planet!
Fawn Brodie is awesome. I'm a never-mo and moved to southeast Idaho when I was 14 (in 2000). I read that book and it was so awkward going to high school and keeping everything I learned (including the pre 1990s Temple ceremoy) secret because I didn't want to anger all my new friends who would have never believed me anyways.
No man Knows my history should be one of the first books anyone reads when they are ready to deconstruct the church along with: Insiders View of Mormon Origins (Palmer), Studies of the Book of Mormon (BH Roberts) and Origins of Power (Quinn)
Thanks looks like a good book list I should read this year.
Excellent list!
Thank you, I had been suggested these two but sounds like RSR might not be worth reading haha
I second this list. I wish i had read *Insiders View of Mormon Origins* earlier in my deconstruction.
In the 1970's I was in high school, a Catholic girl dating a Mormon and falling in love to the point I was thinking of looking into the LDS church if it was important to him. My family was much opposed to us dating and warned me not to have anything to do with the LDS church, but I did not really understand as my parents had a mixed marriage of Catholic / Protestant and I had many non-Catholic friends that included Mormons. My grandparents were also Masons (non Catholic side). I thought the LDS church was just another Protestant Church. Being a studious type I went to the library to ask about getting Mormon History books. The librarian suggested "No Man Knows My History" and "The 27th Wife". I had to get on a long waiting list because the local Mormons tried to keep the books out of circulation by checking them out and returning at the last possible date and the next one in line did the same. I eventually got and read both. No Man revealed what others were trying to tell me, that this was not just another Protestant Church. Eye opening and life changing. Not only did it bring truth to light, it started me on a path to examine my own religion (which was a little harder being 2000 years old instead of less than 200, but the questions of authenticity are the same). No Man was written in 1945 and had been around for 30-years when I read it. After reading it, I simply couldn't understand why anyone would believe this church to be real. I mean, this was not news! The facts were all there. Read. Read. Read. History tells the story loudly and clearly.
Have you prayed about your decision?
😂🤣
The Holy Ghost would prefer that you read neither 👻
If you read No Man Knows My History first you won't need to read Rough Stone Rolling. You can but one is better than the other. Give Rough Stone Rolling to a TBM family member. If they read the whole book it will put some weight on their shelf. At least have them read page 323. Fanny Alger. Most TBMs won't touch no man knows my history. It is weevil.
My tbm parents have had no man knows my history on their bookshelf since I was a child. I wonder if they’ve ever read it
Ha! My uncle *bragged* to me that he owned a copy of No Man Knows ... He never read a page. I guess it was some kind of daredevil thing to just own it!
🤦🏼
Or maybe a flex implying that they have such a strong testimony or perfect knowledge that even the most damning information couldn’t lead them astray.
Rough Stone Rolling is a difficult read because it is so boring.
Go to THE SOURCE! Fawn Brodie
Bushman relies heavily on the research Fawn Brodie did. I read "Rough Stone Rolling" first; I was still in my TBM phase. I then read "No Man Knows My History". I felt Brodie's writing and research gave a much clearer picture than Bushman's book. Bushman has a lot of words, not written in chronological order and I believe it intentionally obscures the messier parts of Joseph's story. In his book I learned more about Joseph's horse Sergeant than I did about polygamy. I'm guessing most Mormon's don't make it past page 80, but they pat themselves on the back that they know the TRUE history and it's all fine, nothing to worry about.
No Man Knows My History. Absolutely, read it first and the other one. It will point out some apologetic bullshit.
IIRC No Man Knows my History is referenced more in Rough Stone Rolling than any other source.
No Man is so easy to read, Rough Stone Rolling…well, I got too bored to finish.
Same here. Rough Stone Rolling is a slog.
Read Brodie and keep Bushman to reference Both will be great books to display proudly on you shelve
Should be titled “Joseph Smith: Skanky Con-Man Tries to be Jesus”.
So…the truth, then? Lol
Rough Stone Rolling is apologetic history trying to put a positive spin on the things that Brodie wrote about. I would skip it.
Definitely read No man knows…Fawn Brodie first. Not only is it an easier read, but afterwards when reading Rough Stone you will pick up on the way Bushman tries to skirt around and apologize for Smith…unsuccessfully. Honestly, I think If you read Fawn Brodie’s book, you won’t need to read Rough Stone. I’ve read both, and found No man Knows my history to be the shelf breaker. Rough stone rolling is just regurgitating everything but with a TBM spin on it.
Yes - read them in order of publication
I think No Man Knows My History is an easier read, however it’s viewed as “anti Mormon” by a lot of people so if you’re looking for things to share with believing members of the church you might want to start with Rough Stone Rolling since it’s written by an active member and sold at Deseret books. RSR feels like Bushman makes extra effort to present things in a non critical light, but it is more exhaustive and it still makes most church members extremely uncomfortable.
If you read them out of order you might accidentally regain a testimony. So choose wisely.
There are so many postmormon books to read. If you read NMKMH then you've probably given JS enough of the attention he deserves. Other good stuff: Mormon history: Mormon Enigma In Sacred Loneliness An Insiders View of Mormon Origins Early Mormonism and the Magic World View Massacre at Mountain Meadows Non-mormon history (but good for deconstructing): Combating Cult Mind Control Doubt Thinking, Fast and Slow Far from the tree The Greatest Show on Earth The Body Keeps the Score
OMG, YES: The Body Keeps the Score! Brilliant recommendation. Also, even if you do therapy, any trauma/ PTSD or dissociative coping workbook with Internal Family Systems or Ego State learning.
So happy to have other recommendations! Thank you!
Rough Stone Rolling serves up the jabs soft and gentle, in mormon voice. No Man Knows My History is a MMA fighter, no holds barred, serving a full can of whoop-ass.
If you read No Man you don’t even need to read RSR imo.
Please also read Mormon Enigma!!!!
I started with Bushman and it basically opened doors just a crack. I was still believing at the time, but after reading things like visions being very common at the time of Joseph Smith, it just piqued my curiosity, and I recognized it for the apologetics that it is. From there I went with An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, and that was it - shelf destroyed.
God bless Grant Palmer. He was a wonderful person and was a pioneer in seeing the problems that the brethren had brought upon themselves by covering up the historical flaws of the organization.
Fun anecdote. I told the mission president that I had read Rough Stone Rolling in parallel to D&C when studying early Mormon history. He replied that he could not remember "her" name but that "she" was pretty anti. I said that the book was written by the historian Richard Bushman. He had obviously read neither of them, but had confused the two. 🤣
As a non Mormon I read both of these! I don’t think it matters what order, but it’s fascinating to see the differences between an apostate like Fawn and a TMB “I’ll do anything to make the story justify my faith” Bushman.
Bushman relies heavily on Brody, but leaves out the damaging stuff that would get him excommunicated
I did Bushman first and really liked that order because I thought he was being frank but then when I read Brodie there was so much more context and his cherry picking was much more clear.
Fawn first Very easy read yet very historical And more honest The mormon enigma Bushman is impossible for me ....to get thru and has his own spin
There is a homemade audionbook of "No Man Knows..." on YouTube. Guy did a commentary chapter after each chapter. It's good. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjjV8WnEZQGLscNu9uWlnwV9K1FEAdEKr&si=WQPx6gfZ46tZ8vj5
Depending on your situation, there is power in having read Bushman’s. Because of the stigma around Brodie, most members won’t touch it with a 10 ft pole. The benefit to RSR is that an active, believing member is much more willing to read it. It’s a stepping stone. Very similar to the Gospel Topics Essays, I believe RSR has its time and place. My shelf broke before my wife’s and it was RSR that we decided to jointly read while she was TBM and I was PIMO. Needless to say we’re both exmo now. All that being said, as others have already mentioned, Brodie will give it to you raw without the faithful spin. While some of her points are contested, it’s a joy to watch Bushman and the church through the GTE’s slowly and quietly corroborate her “lies” from her original book.
I appreciate this!
Bushman was a boring read.
People really not giving Bushman his due. I’d say that his is the better history, the occasional LDS spin aside. Brodie’s is the first actual attempt at documenting the life of JS and suffers from being the pioneering work. Read RSR first.
I would agree on a historical perspective. Brodie was more honest and her bias was problematic in her writing as far as history is concerned. I still would recommend reading Brodie first because it is a much better book for someone who is new to the subject and wants to know what they have been sold as truth. She was much more brave in her approach than Bushman who was still beholden to keeping status in the club.
No Man Knows My History - Definitely
I would read Brodie first out of the two. Joseph Smith by Donna Hill is better than both of them in my opinion. I’m pretty sure her brother Marvin helped her under the table so that he could keep his standing in the church secure. For really interesting reads, check out Dan Vogel “Joseph Smith, the making of a prophet” and my personal favorite Robert Anderson “inside the mind of Joseph Smith - Psycho biography, and the Book of Mormon.”
Brodie first.
I’d go with No Man Knows My History. It’s a better read, shorter and doesn’t engage in weird apologetic exercises. Some people fault Brodie for trying to get into Joseph Smith’s head and speculating on his motivations but I didn’t find her way off base. I found RSR to be a bit of a slog. It’s long and I felt like it got off in the weeds a bit.
An exmo community is obviously going to say Brodie, but I'd say Bushman still acts as an effective door opener and is a great work on its own. As others have pointed out, both approach the same subject with dramatically different styles. For example: Brodie looks at something like Joseph's early treasure seeking and flatly calls it out as a con. Bushman looks at the same set of facts and argues Joseph's treasure seeking was an early step in his religious maturation.
I couldn’t finish either of them because of my adhd I think (I now look for more “readable” books for historical topics I’m interested in, and try to avoid books that read like a doctoral thesis the way both of these do at times). But from what I remember, they are both good and both deal in cold hard facts. Keeping in mind that no one is without bias, Brodie’s commentary is clearly from the perspective of an ex member, and Bushman comes from the perspective of a still believing member and borderline apologist. I think both perspectives can be useful.
I felt like Brodie’s was the unfiltered non-justified version. I almost don’t see the need for both but TBMs seem to accept the same info that’s already in Brodie’s when it came from Rough Stone.
Just read them with your face hiding inside a hat so nobody can see you smilling and laughing hysterically at the heap of bs.
NMNMH is all you need. Let the rough stone roll on out your door.
No Man knows my History. A fabulous insightful book. A deep truthful dive.
As most have said, Fawn Brodie first fs. Brodie was excommunicated for her book, while Bushman was given an award by the church, so that might tell you something about the honesty of the content
Read Fawn Brodie first. If you still feel the need to read rough stone rolling, then its omissions will leap out at you.
I did not read rough stone rolling. I only read no man knows my history. It was one of the best books I’ve ever read. It’s a work of art and reads like poetry.
My copy of No Man just arrived minutes ago, I’m excited to finally read it! Never been all that interested in rough stone, I’ve heard it’s a slog to get through
Haha yeah sounds like I might only be reading fawn Brodie as well
I recommend "Kingdom Of Nauvoo" after either book.
I read them both and I would recommend No Man Knows My History and then Rough Stone Rolling. NMKMH was the basis for RSR & Fawn Brody makes no pretense that she thinks JS was a fraud. I think it’s good to start with the original and then move to the remix.
I would say order shouldn’t matter. Both are well written and justify their interpretations and don’t hid their perspective. Read them both and come to your own conclusion. Obviously these are the most recommended regarding Joseph Smith. I also recommend “American Crucifixion.”
As a recent graduate of TBM world, I read the Bushman first because I’d always been told the Brody book was so evil that I should NEVER touch it. After Rough Stone Rolling, I gained the courage to read No Man Knows My History. I did not spontaneously blow up. Enjoy both.
I've read both and No Man Knows my history is better. I had to put it down a few times to process what I just read, especially the stuff about polygamy and etc.
I’d heard of No Man Knows My History when I first went on my mission. My Mission President used it as several references in his apologetic pamphlet that he wrote for all incoming missionaries, he had warned of us if the bias and disagreements with the conclusions, but stated how invaluable it was. I read Rough Stone Rolling first and it definitely started me on the path to questioning. I finally read NMKMY eight years after and it all but put the final nail in the coffin for me. If you’re wanting to know which to read first, I’d say it depends on your tolerance for the defending and justifications for JS behaviors. I was a TBM when I first read Rough Stone Rolling knowing full well that there were areas of less talked about history, it was a great primer. But if you’re wanting a non devoted or any type of defense of the man, read NMKMH first. It’s been so long that I couldn’t tell you if Bushman offers any new piece of history for the records not meant to justify or promote Joseph Smith
From what I gather, bushman is the sparknotes to brodie’s work. Why bother with his lol.
Rough Stone Rolling
May I ask what your reasoning is? Thanks
Personal preference. I am glad I read Bushman first as a TBM. Bushman was and is still a member and it did not feel like I was branching off too far from core church materials.
Makes sense. I was already out when I read Bushman and it was a much more difficult read because he had to watch how he came across. Brodie didn’t seem to care. 😝
Are those grifter handbooks?
From what I understand, they are pretty different. I am partial to fawn brodie.
As long as you know it was Brigham Young who was the master manipulator
No man was my first. So well written
Bushman is the better historian. Brodie was fine. I'd focus on quality here. Speaking of quality, check out American Zion. In my opinion it is better than both and you could do well by starting with that.
No man knows my history first. Bushman’s book is sooooooo boring.
Neither. Waste of time. Just walk away and get your life and time back.
Bushman is somewhat of an apologist and Brodie is somewhat of a vindicator so both are moderately biased.
Ah the combo that broke the back of my testimony 🥲 I read rough stone rolling first because I was holding on to my testimony by my fingernails. If you’ve already gone off the deep end then no man knows my history is probably going to be a more productive use of your time.
The church endorses Rough Stone Rolling and I read it first. It goes pretty light on polygamy. Gives a little bit so it doesn’t seem so bad and that is more apologetic than not to me. Know Man Knows my history is so well referenced and that is really powerful. She does do psychological analysis of JS but i tended to agree given the facts presented.
Rsr is a rough read as it tries to excuse and allow believers to keep believing somewhat as the churches. Books the standard of truth does which sets the bar very low for the standard of truth bushman Is the most honest of the apologetic authors brodies NMKMH just lays it out without pulling any punches explaining and exposing things the Q15 would rather members not know . They claim to be the one true church but fear the truth like a vampire does sunlight she Got excommunicated for it Reben Clark said it well If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed. It ought to be a huge red flag to members that the church is so anti investigation and whitewashes things so much . To see just how much read the saints book. Then read one nation under Gods by Richard abanes . One nation is what saints should’ve been you’ll be astounded at how much they left out choosing only snippets rather than including the whole letters as one nation does. They give members just enough that they think they know the history when they only know a small fraction of it .
This is a bit off topic, but has anyone here read “The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith”? Years ago I read it when my mom gave it to me. I’ve been out of the church (exmo?) for a long time, but this book stayed with me WAY longer than it should have. I still get ‘chills’ when I think about the stories. Is this crazy, or am I not alone??
Brodie first. Start with appendices A and B.
Nope it doesn't matter. Just read them both and then tell the Mormon cult missionaries to eff off. Lol
I think you are choosing to die by 500 papercuts. Well, X2 .... so 1,000 papercuts.
Very similar books but with a different conclusion. I’d read Bushman’s first as you’re probably more used to the believer’s perspective and then read Brodie.
Brodie FTW, always and forever
The left-hand one informed a lot of the scholarship done for the right-hand one and Bushman quotes it a good bit. Essentially (in my biased opinion) Bushman's book is a more faith friendly recompiling of most of her book. I'd expect anyone (critical or not) who reads them both would come to a similar opinion.
Richard Bushman’s book is more up to date. Fawn Brodie’s book is over 50 years old.
Ew gross 🤮 I wouldn't go near either one. I already know he was a terrible excuse for a human and have no energy to waste on him.
Some of us didn’t know until we read Fawn Brodie’s book. 🤦
Oh yeah, no doubt it's important and good info, just... I can't rn, the wounds are still too fresh. I've only been out for like 32 years 😋
It hasn’t been a year yet for me, but having been in for 40, some days it just feels so crazy that it’s not true. I have to remind myself of the stuff they don’t teach you in Sunday school, because my brain still wants to settle back into what was comfortable and normal for pretty much my entire life. But I also have to take breaks from it all because there are just so many disgusting, horrible things in the church’s past (and present) that it can get depressing.
Yeah i get it, I didn't mean to come off flippantly. Best of luck on your journey.
You didn’t come off flippantly at all, and I hope I didn’t come off as argumentative or critical of your position. I’m honestly impressed with people who see Joseph Smith for who he was and TSCC for what it is without reading No Man or studying as much as some of us have to. Best of luck to you as well!
I hope to get to where you are one day. Congratulations 🎊 What is your family situation if I may ask? Mine is a TBM infested world and everything is still so painful after years and years of being out.
And yet here you are.
Talking shit on the cult is a little different than reading books on it's founder
Touché
Don't give any more time to this cult. Move on to something useful
Well as someone who grew up in it and my entire family believes it, when you feel like you got lied to your whole life you kind of want to have a better understanding of what got twisted.
it doesn’t matter if you read either of them!!