- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I never read a single thing at once. Got this other book, and am through close to half of it. Will comment as I can going forward.
I would have difficulty reading this book. I want to build my spirit not bring it down. I’m sure she could make the same argument about the Bible or any other book considered scripture.
Doesn’t she have an ambulance to chase?
Its interesting so far. I feel like I need to read everything I can,…I’ve spent 20 years reading the “pro” stuff (Jesus the Christ, MIracle of Forgiveness, all the standard works through, Marvelous Work and Wonder, Truth Restored, Doctrines of Salvation, Mormon Doctrine, countless books from Maxwell, Bednar, members of the 70, and so forth, countless Ensigns, countless GC Reports,…etc)….and now spending time on the other side. When I was writing my own thesis, a wise adviser told me: “You know when you can rest assured you are getting to the end of your research: you will begin to encounter the same topics over and over in the papers you read.”
I’ve now read Greg Prince’s biography of David O. McKay, the book by Grant Palmer, the book by Richard Bushman, have read some of D. Michael Quinn, and about 50% through this new one. Read a big chunk of “Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma”…etc. These books are starting to duplicate each other with what they are saying.
The thing that I appreciate about these ‘other side’ books is they frame the questions in different ways; it makes it clear that from ethical, theological, and even legal perspectives, there are some concerns that have been omitted from the narrative.
There is a pretty big hole between what the church teaches, and some of the questions brought up by these ‘other side’ authors.
I’m sorry for the ambulance remark. I have difficulty with authors who leave, then write books that sound like they are justifying their decision. Do we expect to get a balanced presentation of history, doctrine, beliefs or anything else concerning the LDS church?
I do like authors like Richard Bushman, who seems to present a more balanced work.
Just reading the table of contents, it seems like it will be very negative.
I will be interested in your views before I read it.
This is a link to amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615465897/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i1_r?ie=UTF8&fpl=fresh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=&pf_rd_r=13TFE5W4WMH27RN2KQ6P&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=6aad23bd-3035-4a40-b691-0eefb1a18396&pf_rd_i=desktop This lady left some holes in here own personal narrative (the first 1/3 of the book is her story ‘OUT’ of Mormonism). Some of the things she did write coincide pretty well with Bushman.
And, from all of the things I’ve read, I think BY and I would have been enemies–his personality really rubs me the wrong way.
Just saying……
:crazy: Heber13 wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:And, from all of the things I’ve read, I think BY and I would have been enemies–his personality really rubs me the wrong way.
Just saying……
:crazy: Some of those people in Young’s time
volunteeredto colonize hundreds of miles from SLC. I think you might see why. 
DarkJedi wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:And, from all of the things I’ve read, I think BY and I would have been enemies–his personality really rubs me the wrong way.
Just saying……
:crazy: Some of those people in Young’s time
volunteeredto colonize hundreds of miles from SLC. I think you might see why. LOL. I would have been one of them….
Quote:And, from all of the things I’ve read, I think BY and I would have been enemies–his personality really rubs me the wrong way.
Life is ironic. My grandmother was born in 1903, somewhere along the way she joined the church, but it was an “in name only” connection. She grew up in an orphanage in Salt Lake City. Even though BY died in 1877, his influence as a colonizer and leader was still deeply felt in Utah during my grandmother’s formative years. Many years later when I was a teen in the 1970’s-80’s she and I discussed religion.
She was well read and well lived. She adored BY, but wanted nothing to do with JS.
She never met either of them, just as we haven’t, but BY influence over the place of her childhood melded him to her. She saw him as a genius.
Lots of anger in this book. It is not for the faint in heart. It is, however, interesting in some of the quotes and things brought out. Did JS drink, to the possibility of excess?
Did he really seek Sarah Pratt as his wife, the then wife of Orson? From what Bushman said, Orson and his wife were excommunicated for a time, and then re-jointed the church and Orson was placed back into his position….but there was an agreement to not bring the matter up as part of that re-instatement.
And, some of the things attributed to Sarah are pretty interesting about things going on in Navoo…..
Rob4Hope wrote:Its all good….
:thumbup: I will be done with this book today. I’ve learned several new things. The tone of the 2nd half of this book is QUITE hostile–if you have an ax to grind and want to fan flames,…this book will do it. The authors personal angst spills into the pages.
That being said, I found some things written about Brigham Young (and they were referenced) shocking. For example, misogynistic sentiment and feeling were astonishingly prevalent, wrecking havoc back then. There appears to have been a divorce with Wife #19 from BY, and an argument over alimony. She was denied, despite suing for support. The final out for BY was the marriage was declared improper or something–a legal loop hole that was given to protect BY from paying.
This is interesting considering BY told all of women in a grandiose speech to either quit complaining or he would use his keys to release them all from their marriages. But in reality, in a misogynistic environment that controlled the entire economy, such a release would result in penury and next to death I’m sure for the children (if the wife wanted to take them with her)….or possible ostracism if the children were abandoned and left with BY, if he would even take them. He did, according to history, play favorites with some of his wives.
Its my opinion from what I have read that the entire environment back in BY days trapped the women: they had little if any financial recourse unless they had family somewhere who would take them in, and the offer by BY to release them and send them on their way was LESS then disingenuous. His own example showed he would NOT offer financial support if a wife left, and his threats of them “going to hell” seem more geared at keeping them inline than being a kind benevolent leader.
I’m not a history buff with regards to BY….but this whole area of the book was fascinating. The author documented these sections well.
BY was a very complicated person. It sounds like the book focused on highlighting only the bad stuff, but there was a LOT of good stuff, as well. R4H, I do agree that BY was a less-than-optimal leader. He’d be my least favorite President to meet, I’m sure. There is much to lay at his feet: the Ban, institutionalization of polygamy, theocracy at a much greater level than JS, the cover up of the MMM, etc.
But, as Ray said, I also believe he was very complicated. For all the accusations that can be hurled against him, I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that he also did a lot of good. He personally was responsible for the three largest Mormon migrations: From Missouri to Illinois, from Nauvoo to Winter Quarters, and from everywhere to SLC. IMO, he saved the Church from extinction. He was the perfect person for the job; he was able to plan, but also was very good at adaptation, unlike a lot of leaders. For example, when the Church left Nauvoo, they planned a huge migration of the whole body of saints direct from Nauvoo to the Rocky Mountains. But, it became apparent that the undertaking was too difficult. BY adjusted the plan, set up WQ, and the following year embarked on a much more focused effort in which “The Pioneer Company”, a small and rugged vanguard group, would lead the way to the Salt Lake Valley, followed a month later by “The Big Company”, and then smaller companies over the succeeding seasons until all were safely in Zion. It was hugely successful.
BY was beloved by the saints in GB, where he had presided over the Church during his apostolic days. When he arrived there for the first time, he was so poor and destitute that the British sisters immediately took it upon themselves to get him some new trousers.
I think it is also worth noting that in the post-JS Nauvoo era, as hostilities grew between the still-thriving Mormons and the impatient-for-their-demise neighbors, BY had every right to stand his ground against the escalating violence. Yet he chose instead to abandon Nauvoo and did so ahead of an agreed-upon schedule. He chose not to stand and fight, but rather to take on massive hardship and poverty; seeing a bigger picture.
So, yeah, if we examine only the darker side of a complex individual, we can miss their accomplishments. Albert Einstein was a womanizer who abandoned his wife and children. Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner who fathered slave-children by his 30-years-younger-slave-girl. Steve Jobs was known to be an absolute jerk at times; as chronicled by biographer Walter Isaacson, who noted the “Good Steve” and “Bad Steve” sides of him. It’s pretty easy to find examples of selective examination. In politics, for example, it’s a universal tactic to extol the virtues of one’s own candidate without mentioning their faults, and to do the opposite with the opposition candidate.
- The topic ‘An American Fraud — One Lawyer’s Case Against Mormonism’ is closed to new replies.
