How old were you when you first learned JS practiced polyandry?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Someone tell me he didn't really ask that question.

If you're referring to the "why wouldn't he..." question then what issue do you take?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

If you're referring to the "why wouldn't he..." question then what issue do you take?

I just think the answer to that question is sort of obvious.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I just think the answer to that question is sort of obvious.

I think Fusnik's point is that if JS was already consummating marriages with his non polyandrous wives, isn't it likely that he consummated all of his marriages?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I think Fusnik's point is that if JS was already consummating marriages with his non polyandrous wives, isn't it likely that he consummated all of his marriages?

I know.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've been mocking/trivializing the somber importance people attach to the book; moreso the conclusions they appear to be drawing.

....

I'm certainly not painting Bushman's work as a polemic, although you seem intent on stuffing those words into my mouth.

While not actually using that word, you have most certainly implied such.

The reason the book is quoted so much lately is that Bushman is universally regarded as the top LDS historian today. And he worked on this book for thirteen years. It was his "magnum opus" if you will. It has been widely praised (both inside and outside of the church) as the definitive JS biography to date.

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not necessarily looking for revelatory of proof of polyandry (although it's absence should tell you something). I'm looking for scriptural evidence that Joseph was guilty of some of the beliefs/acts/teachings and the corresponding divine disdain/reproval/punishment suggested by the hypothesizing in this thread.

You are looking for a revelation as evidence that JS was guilty of something? That's a pretty bizarre expectation.

And as for your "punishment" red herring, it was presented as pure speculation. If there was scriptural proof, it would be a moot point.

Originally Posted by Tex

Moreover, reading the book will not likely change my opinion, but I plan on doing so eventually. I suspect were I to read it and then post the same opinions, your anti-Tex accusation dial would just rotate from "you are ignorant" to "you are blind/stupid." There's not really room here for me to legimately disagree.

Now you are getting dramatic. And your last line is just absurd. We have wildly varying opinions here (see SU posts for example). But you had better bring your A-game.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm certainly not painting Bushman's work as a polemic, although you seem intent on stuffing those words into my mouth.

This is funny. You think anybody will buy it?

Your exact words (my emphasis):

Originally Posted by Tex

Bushman is simply the latest scholar to feed the rabid conspiratorial underground in the LDS Church. Every generation has a few. .... I just don't have the time right now to engage in light or frivolous reading.

...

This is so far removed from what the scriptures themselves suggest, one wonders if we should toss out the D&C and instead replace it with "Rough Stone Rolling."

...

We could come up with all kinds of useful excuses to try and shoehorn revealed doctrine into our newly conceived Bushman-and/or-Quinn-painted Joseph Smith.

...

What I do know is, there's nothing I've seen in scripture (which, last I checked, still takes precedence over Richard Bushman) to support the kind of speculation in this thread.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why should this be part of the standard church curriculum to under 18s?

It would have been good to know before I spent two years of my life on a mission. If I would have known it was okay for prophets to be man-whores and wife swapping and brothels were okay for leaders, I would have worked harder to reach leadership status in the church.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Richard Bushman, a member in good standing, and former Columbia professor, did everything he could to dilute it, but he was unable to deny the evidence. You attack him for sensationalizing, when it was just the opposite. He made it sound as boring as possible.

Good ole knee jerk reactions to works never perused by the Mex. By the way, I believe Mohammed's Sword of Islam needs a few more mullahs to behead infidels, you might wish to apply.

Tex is out on a limb here. It's true that Bushman has recently gained some popular acclaim; but he's been publishing on these subjects for decades (as has Claudia). And he's definitely not sensationalizing. If anything, he's giving Mormons the best faith-affirming story he can while still being a credible historian. Moreover, he was invited to speak at the Church Sponsored symposium at the Library of Congress with the likes of Robert Millett and Elder Oaks.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

It would have been good to know before I spent two years of my life on a mission. If I would have known it was okay for prophets to be man-whores and wife swapping and brothels were okay for leaders, I would have worked harder to reach leadership status in the church.

Well, if you're more of a person that puts stock into things like this more than any spiritual witness you may have gained, then maybe you would have been better off not wasting 2 years of your life.

Consider it a lesson learned.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, if you're more of a person that puts stock into things like this more than any spiritual witness you may have gained, then maybe you would have been better off not wasting 2 years of your life.

Consider it a lesson learned.

Believe me, I learned a valuable lesson. This is it: Look before you leap. The church is smart to mis-represent it's history. No reason to let the truth get in the way of a good story.