Mormon women irritating the faithful at SeN

[MsJack]

In my view, LHP by now may have become a respectable amateur historian. We’ll know more when her biography on Juanita Brooks is published. Although she began with her Year of Polygamy podcast by relying on Todd Compton’s book (a secondary source chock full of primary polygamy citations and quotes), LHP moved on to immerse herself in primary sources. She once explained it. She reads hundreds of pioneer diaries, and reads them all the time. I’ve heard her on her Mormon History Podcast, from time to time, explain how when she and Bryan Buchanan want to solve some mystery they go to the archives and dive in to the boxes and files. She seems to have an appetite and aptitude for historical sleuthing. And she seems to react the same giddy way as credentialed historian upon finding some new nugget. Not only that, but apparently she does some kind of fieldwork with offshoot polygamist sects. In my view, Lynzie Hansen Park has become more than “warm and bright” and merely connected, even though uncredentialed.

Thanks for sharing! I haven't kept up with her professional output in recent years, but I'm happy to hear she's moving in this direction.

[drumdude]

In my view, LHP by now may have become a respectable amateur historian. We’ll know more when her biography on Juanita Brooks is published. Although she began with her Year of Polygamy podcast by relying on Todd Compton’s book (a secondary source chock full of primary polygamy citations and quotes), LHP moved on to immerse herself in primary sources. She once explained it. She reads hundreds of pioneer diaries, and reads them all the time. I’ve heard her on her Mormon History Podcast, from time to time, explain how when she and Bryan Buchanan want to solve some mystery they go to the archives and dive in to the boxes and files. She seems to have an appetite and aptitude for historical sleuthing. And she seems to react the same giddy way as credentialed historian upon finding some new nugget. Not only that, but apparently she does some kind of fieldwork with offshoot polygamist sects. In my view, Lynzie Hansen Park has become more than “warm and bright” and merely connected, even though uncredentialed.

Perhaps DCP was simply unaware of LHP’s accomplishments and will correct his post since he is following this thread.

[Physics Guy]

Thinking of Peterson's comments a while back about watching a film about C.S. Lewis and noting all the arguments, I wonder whether he quite understands that drama and documentary are different genres.

Nobody making a show with a lot of early Mormons in it has any interest at all in getting all the historical details exactly right for the sheer sake of doing that. All they want is to give average viewers some mixture of two kinds of buzz. The first buzz is thinking that what they see really happened, at least pretty much; the second is thinking that they're learning an intelligent take on a significant historical controversy.

Neither of these little buzzes can carry a show by itself, of course, but between them I think they must be the main marketing reason to bother making historical pieces. If those little buzzes weren't worth at least something in viewership numbers, shows would all just be set in fantasy worlds.

Getting uncontroversial hard facts of historical detail, like what model of rifle was around in what year, can be done straightforwardly. You pay laughably small sums to a few tenured or un-tenured history nerds, and then you can count on a few good reviews from their end of the influencer spectrum. It's not worth much but it's worth more than it costs. The controversy part is trickier but can also be worth more.

What you want to do with your historical controversy is anything but a painstakingly even-handed treatment showing all points of view. Heck, no. What you want is to go with the most dramatic take on the controversy that you can take without creating too big a backlash. If your story's premise gets flagged as "controversial", that's great. Riling up a few people whom average viewers will write off as biased? That's not a risk that you run. It's a goal.

What you want to avoid if you can is getting stuck with a label of blatant propaganda. The propaganda label wouldn't kill your show all by itself, or anything, if your show has enough other things going for it, but the propaganda label would lose you too many average viewers whom you could easily have kept, and you don't want to take chances like that with a budget your size.

So you want to find experts whom you can trust to keep you from portraying something too indefensible. Beyond this, though, you just want them to let you do what you want without carping, and offer spicy historical details that you can use in your story.

This means you don't call up many history profs. You're not filming history. You're courting controversy as if she were The Bachelorette. You just want backlash insurance.

[drumdude]

I imagine DCP would be much more friendly towards LHP if she had done a year long podcast on the history of Brigham Young’s love of the theatre, instead of her Year of Polygamy podcast.

Her choice of difficult subject material is, to DCP, an explicit attack on his church. That makes her a fair game target for his petty little denigration.

Perhaps they can hide “LHP is butthead” somewhere in the next Friday article of Interpreter.

[IWMP]

I don't think anyone can say it's how women dress. Because women who are completely covered are raped, I think people are just using clothing as an excuse to justify their behaviour. I get the impression that rape can't just be about having sex, it must have something to do with the power and control to take away someone's choice because with swiping dates and hookups, if any man acts reasonably normal, I am pretty sure it wouldn't be that hard to find someone who will have sex, and there are also prostitutes available. I don't mean to sound crude but there is no excuse for rape. And I believe those that are doing it must be doing it for some sick twisted reason. I don't doubt that I am probably wrong but this is how I see it.

For men it is entirely possible to have time when sex is not available. That can be frustrating but is little incentive to rape. Rape is a violent act which I am pretty sure would be done by someone wishing for the violence.I imagine there are multiple ways a person could get deeply involved in the wish for violence but without such a wish the idea of rape is simply repulsive.

I think you have worded this far better than I. I was struggling to get across that I don't think it's to do with the need for sex but more to do with the desire to subject someone to that, but violence is a better way to put it.

The very few times I've gone out to a night club with my brother's, there have been women throwing themselves at them and one was upset once and started crying because my younger brother dances with her a lot but then didn't want to take her home for more, so this has given me the perspective that it is possible for me to go out and find that if they wanted. Maybe that is my ignorance.

[IWMP]

In my view, LHP by now may have become a respectable amateur historian. We’ll know more when her biography on Juanita Brooks is published. Although she began with her Year of Polygamy podcast by relying on Todd Compton’s book (a secondary source chock full of primary polygamy citations and quotes), LHP moved on to immerse herself in primary sources. She once explained it. She reads hundreds of pioneer diaries, and reads them all the time. I’ve heard her on her Mormon History Podcast, from time to time, explain how when she and Bryan Buchanan want to solve some mystery they go to the archives and dive in to the boxes and files. She seems to have an appetite and aptitude for historical sleuthing. And she seems to react the same giddy way as credentialed historian upon finding some new nugget. Not only that, but apparently she does some kind of fieldwork with offshoot polygamist sects. In my view, Lynzie Hansen Park has become more than “warm and bright” and merely connected, even though uncredentialed.

Sounds like a true historian at heart to me.

[drumdude]

In 1910 author Josiah Francis Gibbs, who had lived through those turbulent years in Utah wrote an account of early Mormon history. Besides the Mountain Meadows Massacre he listed:


"The blood atonement murder of William R. Parrish and his son Beason for apostasy at Springville in 1856, ordered by Young himself;

"The murder of Rosmos Anderson by the leading priesthood of the Parowan stake of Zion in 1856, because Cedar City Bishop Philip Klingensmith coveted Anderson’s buxom Scandinavian stepdaughter as his plural wife, whom Anderson also wanted as his plural and had already committed adultery with;

"The castration of Tom Lewis at Manti, Utah, in 1856 because Bishop Warren Snow was lecherously ambitious to polygamously marrying the girl with whom Lewis was keeping company;

"The inexpressibly cowardly murder of William Hatton at Fillmore, 1856 by a man who could be named and who was the agent of the prophets, seers, and revelators at Salt Lake City, the handsome widow of Hatton soon after being added to the celestial harem of the unspeakable Prophet Heber C. Kimball;

"The cold-blooded murder and robbery in the spring of 1857, on Brigham Young’s orders, of the Aiken party who were transporting $25,000 east from San Francisco;

"The cowardly assassination of the two wounded that escaped the Aiken party massacre, by Orrin Porter Rockwell and Wild Bill Hickman, who under pretense of conducting them from Utah by the southern route to California shot them in the back at a point some four or five miles south of Nephi;

"The midnight murder later on of King Robinson, Newton Brassfield and others who became obnoxious to the Mormon leaders."

I wonder where Hollywood gets these crazy ideas…

https://www.biblefriendlybooks.com/2016 ... d.html?m=1

[Moksha]

If I recall correctly, Dan was an expert witness on Mormon fundamentalism for the Brian David Mitchell prosecution even though he had told our forum he had no idea whether Mormon fundamentalists self-identify as "Mormon."

The MAD board had to delete half of its threads so the defense could find nothing with which to impeach Dr. Peterson's testimony. The conclusion was that the defense would behave as apologists and base their case on ad hominem arguments rather than the evidence.