DiscussMormonism.com

Here is one part of the article that really bothers me:

.” He also floated a practical-sounding theory, that roughly half of all plural wives were converts to Mormonism who lacked husbands or older brothers in the Mormon community; plural marriage provided male protection.

Come on. Bushman knows better than to float a theory out there like that. It's a very misleading statement from him considering that there were plenty of monogamous males these women could have married for male protection. Even more importantly, that had NOTHING to do with the doctrine and purpose of Mormon polygamy and he knows it.

In Joseph Smith's day, nearly *all* the women of the church were converts, except a few teenagers...

Come on. Bushman knows better than to float a theory out there like that. It's a very misleading statement from him considering that there were plenty of monogamous males these women could have married for male protection. Even more importantly, that had NOTHING to do with the doctrine and purpose of Mormon polygamy and he knows it.

Complete nonsense that men had to marry a single woman in order to help her out!

The reality is, most men could barely take care of one family let alone three or four or twenty! The women were no more taken care of and protected than any single women with children living alone in the 19th century West.

Polygamy had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the needs of women and Bushman well knows it! It had to do with the desire of some men for sex, power, and an eternal harem.

Shame on Bushman!

~dancer~

Richard's always struck me as a very careful historian and a wonderful, honest person.

Obviously, some here know him much better than I do, and see right through the façade.

He is also a sloppy historian leaving out an important paper (Dialogue, Spring 1969) because he was done like a dinner by Wesley Walters MA (lol)

Richard's always struck me as a very careful historian and a wonderful, honest person.

In the past, I too had the impression that he was a careful historian and a good, decent person.

If true, I am very surprised he would say such nonsense...

So when a journalist at the Pew conference asked Professor Bushman about the historical justification for polygamy, which thrived in Mormon circles before the church outlawed it in 1890, he framed it as a “perplexing problem for Mormons” themselves because it is “so contrary to Mormon contemporary ideas of family.” He also floated a practical-sounding theory, that roughly half of all plural wives were converts to Mormonism who lacked husbands or older brothers in the Mormon community; plural marriage provided male protection.

Bushman knows this is nonsense... for him to "float" the theory (perpetuate the lie), is inappropriate in my opinion.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:Bushman knows this is nonsense... for him to "float" the theory (perpetuate the lie), is inappropriate in my opinion.

We differ, I guess, about what's inappropriate.

In my view, it's inappropriate to brand someone a liar simply because he views things differently than you do.

aussieguy55 wrote:He is also a sloppy historian leaving out an important paper (Dialogue, Spring 1969) because he was done like a dinner by Wesley Walters MA (lol)

I believe that you're referring to the sainted Rev. Wesley P. Walters, M.A., of blessed memory? He was, I'm given to understand, perhaps the greatest scholar of Mormon history who ever lived.

He certainly did the legwork without the aid of University research grants to locate a lot of material on the beginnings in New York. Both Quinn and Vogel visited with him to obtain the benefits of his research. No hint of "stealing" documents from county basements is going to dispute the fact he found important material relating to the early legal entanglements Smith had with the law.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

truth dancer wrote:Bushman knows this is nonsense... for him to "float" the theory (perpetuate the lie), is inappropriate in my opinion.

We differ, I guess, about what's inappropriate.

In my view, it's inappropriate to brand someone a liar simply because he views things differently than you do.

Even if what he published under his name is indeed a lie? At what point is it appropriate to brand someone a liar?