Right, so would you agree that every book written about Joseph Smith is written by someone with an agenda?
Or do you believe every book written by a Mormon is factually correct and every book written by anyone else is fabrication?"
My response:
I think all the books I've read about Joseph Smith have the slant of the author. Apologist and exmo authors alike.
Rough Stone Rolling was the closest to unbiased that I've personally read but the guy was upfront about his tbm status in the intro and it shows through in areas but I'm not sure if that is just me projecting my bias on his interpretation of events.
It's well researched and documented. As a Mormon man, it probably won't bother you like it bothered me. I felt nauseated while reading it. But of course, as a woman, I care about other women, not just men.
serena Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's well researched and documented. As a Mormon > man, it probably won't bother you like it bothered > me. I felt nauseated while reading it. But of > course, as a woman, I care about other women, not > just men.
This response would be one I would categorize as emotionally charged. You assume you are talking to a man. You assume about your gender assumption that I don't care about women because somewhere in your past your feelings were hurt by a man whose professed religion happened to be mormon. You could have skipped everything but the first line just like I could have skipped my entire response. Emotion begets emotion and before you know it you have lost all sense of reality.
You've been insulting to those on a Recovery Board - they're trying to recover from something (hint, hint), and yet you expect no emotional responses? This just doesn't make sense.
You wrote in your very first post here "I've sat through so many ward councils, welfare councils, PEC, priesthood leadership, meetings, etc. that it gets nauseating." Women are not allowed in any priesthood meetings, ergo, you could not be a woman.
My response about reading "In Sacred Loneliness" was a warning that reading it may be an upsetting experience, and as I said, it was for me.
I've dealt with sexist men as well as women my entire life; I can handle a few more. I'm tough.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2012 02:41PM by serena.
"Emotion begets emotion and before you know it you have lost all sense of reality."
A true statement, and applicable to mormonism in general.
The ENTIRE premise of mormonism is based on FEELINGS and EMOTIONS....that is the only thing that supports the faith. There is NO physical or historical evidence that proves the FACTUAL claims that mormonism makes.
That is why mormonism has "lost all sense of reality" and why it's authors have a stronger agenda than those that disagree with it's teachings and write about it.
You want a good non-adgenda driven book on mormonism...."Under the Banner of Heaven".....very factual and straight in line with the reality of the situation. The only agenda of the author is to sell it and make $$, not make mormonism look bad.....it looks bad enough by itself if you really look at it....doesn't need any help from an author.
jacob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or does the fact that an author has an agenda > automatically invalidate the content of what has > been written.
It doesn't invalidate it but it also begs the question of what is being left out. What did Brodie leave out? What did she gloss over because she was alienated from her family and church?
What gets left out of official church manuals? What gets glossed over because someone doesn't want to alienate someone from the church?
Even the historical documents current era authors use to write their books were written by people with agendas. How do you take personal bias out of the history? Is it possible?
>> It doesn't invalidate it but it also begs the question of what is being left out. What did Brodie leave out? What did she gloss over because she was alienated from her family and church?
No Man Knows My History was published in 1945 by Alfred A. Knopf. Brody was not excommunicated from her church until AFTER her book was published, in May 1946.
>> What gets left out of official church manuals? What gets glossed over because someone doesn't want to alienate someone from the church?
A lot! Let's start with the Journal of Discourses, which Brigham Young pretty much stated was to be considered doctrine...why has it never been quoted in church manuals since the 1970s?
>> Even the historical documents current era authors use to write their books were written by people with agendas. How do you take personal bias out of the history? Is it possible?
Who has something to defend, and what is it they are defending? Why does the church insist that researchers sign waivers and submit manuscripts for pre-publication review? What are they trying to censor? You can not paint all historians with such a broad brush: one author's agenda might be "what is factual?", another author's agenda might be "how would this hurt the church?", another author's agenda might be "is it a good story?" Each of these agendas will produce different results even using the same materials.
Were they not TBM when they wrote their histories? Then the church disfellowshipped/excommunicated them for their labors. What does that mean? Does that mean they had a biased agenda all along? Was it for, or against, or what? And what was the biased agenda toward? "I want to become an ExMo" truth? Mormon truth? REAL truth?
Do you think comparing and analyzing facts gleaned from multiple authors and sources is valid? Or do you insist that only "sanitized" and "approved" authors are capable of speaking the truth you want to hear?
When to you get tired of having others do your thinking for you?
xyz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about Grant H. Palmer and D. Michael Quinn? > > Were they not TBM when they wrote their histories? > Then the church disfellowshipped/excommunicated > them for their labors. What does that mean? Does > that mean they had a biased agenda all along? Was > it for, or against, or what? And what was the > biased agenda toward? "I want to become an ExMo" > truth? Mormon truth? REAL truth? > > Do you think comparing and analyzing facts gleaned > from multiple authors and sources is valid? Or do > you insist that only "sanitized" and "approved" > authors are capable of speaking the truth you want > to hear? > > When to you get tired of having others do your > thinking for you?
If they had written glowing reviews and remained tbm would you still be talking about them? Can't you see that no matter what types of books they write it's biased because they are associated with the church to begin with?
Either they write "bad" books and get ex'd so everyone here can quote their writings or they write "good" books and stay tbm so everyone at the maxwell institute can quote them.
They couldn't write an unbiased book because they were already biased (meaning involved with the church before starting their work) no matter the result.
Frankly, this conversation would be more fruitful if you could select some element treated in both books, show how they contradict one another and open up a discussion that way. This conversation is so general as to be pointless.
>>If they had written glowing reviews and remained tbm would you still be talking about them? Can't you see that no matter what types of books they write it's biased because they are associated with the church to begin with?
You said you didn't want emotional appeals and that is exactly what you're going after with that kind of bull$#!t answer. Knock it off.
anyone claiming to not be biased is kidding themselves.
"They couldn't write an unbiased book because they were already biased (meaning involved with the church before starting their work) no matter the result."
Which is why I say Bushman is no different. The fact that you see him as the most unbiased I think shows you own leanings. He makes unsupported excuses for Smith and avoids or under-explores a number thorny issues. How is that not apologetic?
People for the most part believe what feels right and then find and endorse the evidence that supports their views. You and I are no different. Both biased...only we have opposing views.
Is eekel a he or she? Do we know that for sure? I guess we know nothing for sure, do we? She/he is really playing games. It's very frustrating to read it's threads and see all the assumptions of exmo's it supposedly sees. Yep, the dog died and I blame Ldsin. Maybe that's because the bishop ran her over rushing to church sunday morning and speeding because he was late for his gossip meetings.
No, not really. LIving in a total tbm area our lives are constantly affected by ldsinc. Seriously, everything. From going to the doctor to what we can find at our grocery stores. And yes, the local bish and his whole family drive way too fast, speed, let their little kids in the front without belts, the whole shebang.
I have read soooo much stuff on so many things I can't even tell you what I have read. It makes me frustrated to see that you say the by asking all the posters on here that most will not have more than the "sunday school" education. YOu are so wrong on that. So think before you speak. choose on your own what you think about anything, we all have our opinions.
My opinion is that you didn't take classes this term. So, are you male or female? Conflicting information there.
I suggest that you read the "Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion" by Sterling McMurrin. His book discusses some of things of the Mormon faith. He was a friend of the presidency and quorum of 12. Despite the book being controversial, he was never excommunicated.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2012 02:55PM by laytonguy.
The last thread filled up too fast, and my cyber-reply was nuked...
I just mentioned reading the church-financed "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" (a ten million dollar work of fiction) and invited eekel to read "Blood of the Prophets" and "Innocent Blood."
I haven't been able to take Bushman seriously since the PBS Program "The Mormons" where he noted that the events in Kirtland involving the "Anti-banking Scandal" troubled Joseph terribly, to the point he had to do what he did...
What he did was skip town and hightail it to Missouri...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2012 02:57PM by SL Cabbie.
Eekel your problem at this point is you've already "burned your bridges" on this board.
By starting out asking a rhetorical question to accuse people here instead of seeking actual understanding you've missed your chance to get a positive response.
Ironically you had a valid point - some people on this site are at a point in their recovery process where moving past the anger and over-villianizing the church is the next step in their recovery process. However your poor approach and lack of empathy in bringing this up has dug your own grave.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2012 02:57PM by bc.
Instead, let's talk about the actual research you've done regarding the cult's history, doctrines and behaviors and what conclusions you've reached as a result.
I would like to start with the polygamy issue. How do you resolve that?
"Those are two books discussing the same people and same historical events with very different interpretations of motivations and outcomes. Who has read both and how do you reconcile them?"
Here's how I've dealt with what I read in RSR and No Man Knows...
1) The picture of Joseph Smith painted by both Bushman and Brodie is significantly different than what is taught in Seminary and Sunday School. Both authors have sourced their claims and I have seen them elsewhere as well.
My Take Away: The Church's view of Smith is skewed cause it is trying be faith promoting rather than truth promoting.
2) Joseph Smith did some stuff that seems odd and questionable for a prophet
- use of seer stone in treasure digging and BOM translating - polygamy/polyandry - failed prophecies
My Take Away: The questionable events happened despite the current Church's attempts to ignore them out of the historical record. Been along time since I read Brodie but IIRC she was reasonable fair on things but tends to be critical of Smith when weird stuff comes up. She has been proven wrong on a few things since she wrote in 1945 or so.
Bushman in some cases only acknowledges these events but offers no explanation. In other cases he offers insufficient or weak explanations. IIRC much of his book is spent on ancillary environmental stuff rather the actual history— and he spends little time on things like polygamy and polyandry.
All in all I found Broide's conclusions more logical. If I were to look at the event of Joseph's life not knowing it was him, I would conclude on the evidence that he was a con man. Marrying other men's wives, revelations from God about polygamy or having himself ordained "king" sounds like something David Koresh would do/did.
The idea that God would use the seer stone in the hat process in treasure digging to teach Joseph how to translate or even to recognize spiritual manifestations is hard to buy. First, I do not believe Joseph was seeing treasure buried beneath the ground and guardian spirits protecting them. There is zero evidence Joseph was ever successful in treasure seeking — and yet he claimed to see treasure and spirits. Was he lying or deceived? Doesn't matter. Apparently he couldn't see when treasure hunting but then all of a sudden he can translate the plates by the same method? It makes more sense to me that he was either lying or deceived in both cases.
Read up on what Martin Harris said about the witnesses actually physically see the gold plates. This is interesting as well.
I think an unbiased view of what JS did seriously calls into question LDS claims.
Bushman's more apologetic approach is useful I think for those who desire to maintain faith. Bushman, like many LDS make excuses when talking about Joseph that don't hold up under scrutiny. Eventually though for me they fell flat and I had to admit that it all seems bogus. I applaud Bushman for being one of the few faith LDS historians who even admits there are issues but that said I find his explanations for Joseph's questionable behavior weak.
I think it's important too to consider what Bushman said about his belief in a podcast with Mormon Stories. He essentially said there's too much good in the LDS Church for him to reject it. He didn't testify of Joseph Smith as a prophet or the veracity any of the events as the reasons for believing. I think that's telling.
I read RSR because I was trying to remain balanced in the info I was getting on Mormon history. I read a fair amont before and after as well and it soon became apparent to me that the weight of the evidence did not support LDS claims.
You see RSR as the most unbiased— I do not. I see it as just as pro-LDS biased as No Man KNows My History is critical. I think Bushman's choice to not include more on thornier issues and to provide completely speculative excuses for Joseph's treasure digging and polygamy/polyandry as evidence of this. Again, people w/o a LDS mindset who hearing the messier details would likely see Smith as a charlatan. IMO it takes a serious desire to believe to make the story work.
But then perhaps we're both just seeing the evidence that supports what wer already believe and choosing to disregard the rest.