Can you show me Bushman's defense in favor of polygamy in the book. What did he argue? If I recall he just presented it and let the chips fall where they may.
I remember being very turned off by his section on polygamy. If I recall correctly, he leads the readers to false conclusions about Oliver Cowdrey for example, by implying that his rant against Joseph's affair with Fanny was rooted in jealousy over not being able to practice polygamy himself. He leaves out that Oliver Cowdrey was not married at the time he had supposedly learned of Joseph's first revelation on polygamy during the translation to cause this jealousy. But yet he includes false statements against Oliver by Brigham Young. *I'm going off memory and it's been years since I read it so I'll have to look up the references.
If I recall correctly, he also leads the reader to believe that Joseph didn't have sexual relations in his polyandrous marriages.
Rough Stone Rolling was Bushman's attempt at innoculation and putting apologetic spin on issues that members will encounter.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
Seven wrote:Rough Stone Rolling was Bushman's attempt at innoculation and putting apologetic spin on issues that members will encounter.
Knowing Bushman as well as I do, which isn't all that well at all, that is probably the last thing he was interested in when he wrote the book.
But, this is really an example of being damned if you do and damned if you don't isn't it? Publish a book with the warts and you're accused of "innoculation" [sic]. Publish a book without the warts and you're accused of hiding the ball.
rcrocket wrote: Knowing Bushman as well as I do, which isn't all that well at all, that is probably the last thing he was interested in when he wrote the book.
But, this is really an example of being damned if you do and damned if you don't isn't it? Publish a book with the warts and you're accused of "innoculation" [sic]. Publish a book without the warts and you're accused of hiding the ball.
Writing in his journal about Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman remarks that "part of my purpose in writing is to introduce the troublesome material into the standard account to prevent horrible shocks later."69 "The real question is, Should we hide troublesome things from the Saints and hope they will never find out? The problem then is what happens when they do. They are disillusioned and in danger of mistrusting everything they have been told. . . . Amazingly, many LDS don't know Joseph married thirty women. We have to get these facts out to be dealt with; otherwise we are in a vulnerable position. It may be my job to bring the whole of Joseph's story into the open."70
"I keep hearing of young people who are shocked to discover the ideal Joseph Smith they learned about in Church is not the Joseph Smith most scholars perceive. Taken aback, the young Mormons not only wonder about the Prophet but about their teachers. Everything comes tumbling down."71
"I worry about the young Latter-day Saints who learn only about the saintly Joseph and are shocked to discover his failings. The problem is that they may lose faith in the entire teaching system that brought them along. If their teachers covered up Joseph Smith's flaws, what else are they hiding?"72
I share Bushman's concerns and have reflected on this issue for a long time. I've repeatedly used the metaphor of inoculation to express what I have in mind. A friendly and well-intentioned healthcare professional injects a patient with a benign form of a disease under favorable circumstances so that, later on, when the patient encounters a more threatening form of the disease in more hostile environs, he or she will be immune to its ravages. It seems to me far preferable that Latter-day Saints hear about potentially difficult issues from fellow believers who have accommodated the facts into their faith than that they be confronted by such issues at the hands of people who seek to use new information to surprise them, undermine their confidence in the church and its leaders, and destroy their religious beliefs.
I have a lot of respect for Bushman's honesty in admitting the church has covered up polygamy in an interview I read. I also appreciate his understanding and sensitivity to members like myself who were shocked and upset by discovering the unvarnished history. Kudos to Bushman for addressing this problem and validating what so many who left the church have experienced.
I still applaud his work on this biography, even if I am frustrated by some of the spin and conclusions he leads the readers to.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
A man goes on a 2-month business trip to Europe and leaves his cat with his brother. Three days before his return he calls his brother.
Brother 1: So how is my cat doing?
Brother 2: She's Dead
Brother 1: He's Dead! What do you mean He's Dead! I loved that cat. Couldn't you think of a nicer way to tell me! I'm leaving in 3 days. You could've broke me to the news easier. You could've told me today that she got out of the house or something. Then when I called before I left you could've told me, Well, we found her but she is up on the roof and we're having trouble getting her down. Then when I call you from the airport you could've told me, The Fire Department was there and scared her off the roof and the cat died when it hit the ground.
Brother 2: I'm sorry...you're right...that was insensitive I won't let it happen again.
Brother 1: Alright, alright, forget about it. Anyway, how is Mom doing?
Brother 2: She's up on the roof and we're having trouble getting her down.
TAK made the claim as noted in the above exchanges.
You see, that's why I posed my questions to TAK.:
Hi Jersey Girl..
I was on the boat most of the weekend and away from the laptop. I will try and address your question with a few points later today.. But was wondering.. a) had you read the book? (I assume you have..) and 2) In those areas that are considered troubling for saints, you do did not detect a positive spin to minimize the action?
edit: by the way, Do you disagree with my first point that Bushman did not disclose anything that critics had not discussed before?
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
In reading Bushman’s discussion of Fanny Alger starting on page 326, I found it interesting is his attempt to contextualize the affair by mentioning John Humphrey Noyes who was the founder of the Oneida Community. The Oneida Community was a utopian commune that apparently had open morals regarding marriage and sex. Unfortunately for Bushman’s comparison, the community was founded in 1848 over 15 years after Jos. Smith started the practice and 4 years after his death.. The attempt to contextualize in this regard is one way of giving LDS readers away to accept the affair/marriage even though he really never acknowledges that is in fact what it was.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
Bushman remarks that "part of my purpose in writing is to introduce the troublesome material into the standard account to prevent horrible shocks later."69
OK. So he's guilty of inoculation. Help me understand what you think he should have done instead, or help me understand what is wrong with his "warts and all" approach. Not publish the troublesome material? Or, publish the troublesome material but put it in exclamation points and in bold?
Bushman remarks that "part of my purpose in writing is to introduce the troublesome material into the standard account to prevent horrible shocks later."69
OK. So he's guilty of inoculation. Help me understand what you think he should have done instead, or help me understand what is wrong with his "warts and all" approach. Not publish the troublesome material? Or, publish the troublesome material but put it in exclamation points and in bold?
Simple.. Write like an historian and not an apologist..
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
I remember being very turned off by his section on polygamy. If I recall correctly, he leads the readers to false conclusions about Oliver Cowdrey for example, by implying that his rant against Joseph's affair with Fanny was rooted in jealousy over not being able to practice polygamy himself. He leaves out that Oliver Cowdrey was not married at the time he had supposedly learned of Joseph's first revelation on polygamy during the translation to cause this jealousy. But yet he includes false statements against Oliver by Brigham Young. *I'm going off memory and it's been years since I read it so I'll have to look up the references.
Hmmm
I do not recall this. I do recall Quinn's book Mormon Hierarchy accusing Cowdry of jealousy and I think Oliver was in fact married at the time. Quinn also said Cowdrey had his own affair around this time. I do not think I have read that anywhere before or since and I do not recall the reference. I think you may be in error.
If I recall correctly, he also leads the reader to believe that Joseph didn't have sexual relations in his polyandrous marriages.
Don'r think he even addressed sex in polyandrous marriages.
Rough Stone Rolling was Bushman's attempt at innoculation and putting apologetic spin on issues that members will encounter.