Faith-Promoting History

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The recurring theme I see in the Bushman biography of Joseph Smith is:

1. Joseph Smith didn't write anything about it, because he was a horrible journal keeper
2. Innuendo by members, usually disaffected, often decades after the fact
3. Little to no corroboration, particuarly from contemporaneous accounts

Which then puts Bushman into the awkward position of relating the information, but often without enough meaningful context or substantiation, which leaves the reader to fill in the blanks and usually they see what they want to see.

This brings up an interesting thought. What would have happened if Bushman had published RSR in 1981?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This brings up an interesting thought. What would have happened if Bushman had published RSR in 1981?

Was he the official church historian or secretly gay?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Was he the official church historian or secretly gay?

If you are a gay church member, does the church demand to know?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you are a gay church member, does the church demand to know?

[MikeWaters]

All I am saying is that you don't know what Quinn's situation was in 1981, and neither do I.

Maybe he "chose" to be gay many years later, as you "pro-choosers" like to believe people do.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you are a gay church member, does the church demand to know?

The hell that Michael Quinn lives in is unimaginable. Here is a man with a testimony who both physically and socially just does not fit in with the movement he knows to be of God. I am not trying to vindicate him as God is his judge, but I cannot think of a more difficult gethsemane.

His genuine efforts in history alienated him from the organization and his sexual demons allow the believers to hold him up as an example of devious academics evaluating the Kingdom of God through the context of their secular training.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

All I am saying is that you don't know what Quinn's situation was in 1981, and neither do I.

Maybe he "chose" to be gay many years later, as you "pro-choosers" like to believe people do.

All I am saying is that Bushman's profile is not remotely the same as Quinn's or Arrington's. How the church would have reacted to RSR in 1981 is unknown.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Was he the official church historian or secretly gay?

Church historian? No. Secretly gay? I have no idea. He certainly could be. So could you, for that matter.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Church historian? No. Secretly gay? I have no idea. He certainly could be. So could you, for that matter.

Indy is gay?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Indy is gay?

Maybe not. But then again, he might change his mind.