Faith Crisis…We Were Not Betrayed…

[Markk]

Owning and reading are not the same, I take it that you did not or you would have not asked me to discuss it.... pick out that which you don't agree with and show how Stoddard was wrong and in the book you should have read about Mormonism Unveiled and Lenard Arrington.So my guess is you never read it since you have already asked why I mentioned Arrington and Mormonism Unveiled...

I would think you would want to make an informed assertion, based on her book, given you claimed you were in an extensive study on progressive Mormons.

But O’well. Personally I believe her book is a book that appeals to folks that re searching for reassurance to heal a cracked testimony. For Chapel Mormons that have a lot invested in the church, but are seeing it basically implode from within. It is written almost as a novel in style, and not as a serious scholarly historical book of selected topics. Not even close.

Chapter 1

She wrote the chapter. (And book) with clear intentions to show that certain researchers and historians that dig deep into LDS history, not so much “antis”…but from within the church feel in to a trap of looking at history instead of the Standard works. She does not want people to

She makes it a point to paint the progressive historians as more or less bad people. Quinn, Palmer, Arrington, and Bushman…etc. Instead of focusing on what their assertions, and how they arrived to their conclusions…she passively and sometime openly, attacks their character when ever she can. Like you did about Bushman's mission.

She also skips over facts that might disfavor the church…in favor of attacking the “progressive side.”

All in all it is not even close to being a reliable source of history, far from it…and honestly it was a waste of ten dollars, until now. This will certainly be an interesting adventure with you.

Chapter one is about the Hoffman case and the salamander letter. It is basically a chapter where she sets the table that this letter was the boogie man that ruined Bushman's and Palmers faith. She gets into no details about the truth of Steven Christensen buying the “letter“ and “donating“ to the church. She onlywrote that GBH did not want to pay the 40 k for it…which is leaving a key piece of truth out of the narrative. Or that the GA believed it was the real thing…and that of all the people that believed it was a hoax, it was Gerald and Sandra Tanner. Ironically though…in painting a bad picture of John Welch, she used the Tanner’s as a citation In an endnote…did you read that? her is here source… http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingappendixa.htm

Her intent is to paint LDS historians as being ”spoiled” by LDS history, and that reading it will lead to a faith crisis and possibly leaving the Church.

So Ralf…what say you, in regards to chapter 1 and her general approach in what th ebook is trying to convey to it’s readers?

 

[Richard7]

I would think you would want to make an informed assertion, based on her book, given you claimed you were in an extensive study on progressive Mormons.

But O’well. Personally I believe her book is a book that appeals to folks that re searching for reassurance to heal a cracked testimony. For Chapel Mormons that have a lot invested in the church, but are seeing it basically implode from within. It is written almost as a novel in style, and not as a serious scholarly historical book of selected topics. Not even close.

Chapter 1

She wrote the chapter. (And book) with clear intentions to show that certain researchers and historians that dig deep into LDS history, not so much “antis”…but from within the church feel in to a trap of looking at history instead of the Standard works. She does not want people to

She makes it a point to paint the progressive historians as more or less bad people. Quinn, Palmer, Arrington, and Bushman…etc. Instead of focusing on what their assertions, and how they arrived to their conclusions…she passively and sometime openly, attacks their character when ever she can. Like you did about Bushman's mission.

She also skips over facts that might disfavor the church…in favor of attacking the “progressive side.”

All in all it is not even close to being a reliable source of history, far from it…and honestly it was a waste of ten dollars, until now. This will certainly be an interesting adventure with you.

Chapter one is about the Hoffman case and the salamander letter. It is basically a chapter where she sets the table that this letter was the boogie man that ruined Bushman's and Palmers faith. She gets into no details about the truth of Steven Christensen buying the “letter“ and “donating“ to the church. She onlywrote that GBH did not want to pay the 40 k for it…which is leaving a key piece of truth out of the narrative. Or that the GA believed it was the real thing…and that of all the people that believed it was a hoax, it was Gerald and Sandra Tanner. Ironically though…in painting a bad picture of John Welch, she used the Tanner’s as a citation In an endnote…did you read that? her is here source… http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingappendixa.htm

Her intent is to paint LDS historians as being ”spoiled” by LDS history, and that reading it will lead to a faith crisis and possibly leaving the Church.

So Ralf…what say you, in regards to chapter 1 and her general approach in what th ebook is trying to convey to it’s readers?

Markk said:
Lol, well, I would think you would want to make an informed assertion, based on her book, given you claimed you were in an extensive study on progressive Mormons.

Just sharing my source, not going to write a research paper for you... I understand your frustration and you don't have a lot of time to discuss Bushman and JS Foundation... and I never used the word extensive (exhaustive) study, I wonder about your ability to bring into focus the narrative of my post... I'm a simple General Contractor and a pretend scholar...

Markk said:
But o’well. Personally I believe her book is a book that appeals to folks that re searching for reassurance to heal a cracked testimony. For Chapel Mormons that have a lot invested in the church, but are seeing it basically implode from within. It is written almost as a novel in style, and not as a serious scholarly historical book of selected topics. Not even close.

I have to chuckle at that, she is not pretending to be a scholar, guess you did not read it. She is only pointing out that His Book, Rough Stone Rolling is not a serious example of a thorough and all embracing Book that could pass a peer review by LDS Scholars who are more inclined to
do the research Stoodard has done...

Markk said:
Chapter 1

She wrote the chapter. (And book) with clear intentions to show that certain researchers and historians that dig deep into LDS history, not so much “antis”…but from within the church feel in to a trap of looking at history instead of the Standard works. She does not want people to

She makes it a point to paint the progressive historians as more or less bad people. Quinn, Palmer, Arrington, and Bushman…etc. Instead of focusing on what their assertions, and how they arrived to their conclusions…she passively and sometime openly, attacks their character when ever she can. Like you did about Bushman's mission.

Poppycock, you did not read it, you skimmed through it good buddy... you did not read where she said she was not attacking him personal like you suggest, she shares known facts about him that he even admits to in the person interview.... why do you make things up? That's right, you stated more or less, what is that suppose to mean? Show one attack on their character the isn't already know or admitted to...

Markk said:
She also skips over facts that might disfavor the church…in favor of attacking the “progressive side.”

All in all it is not even close to being a reliable source of history, far from it…and honestly it was a waste of ten dollars, until now. This will certainly be an interesting adventure with you.

Chapter one is about the Hoffman case and the salamander letter. It is basically a chapter where she sets the table that this letter was the boogie man that ruined Bushman's and Palmers faith. She gets into no details about the truth of Steven Christensen buying the “letter“ and “donating“ to the church. She onlywrote that GBH did not want to pay the 40 k for it…which is leaving a key piece of truth out of the narrative. Or that the GA believed it was the real thing…and that of all the people that believed it was a hoax, it was Gerald and Sandra Tanner. Ironically though…in painting a bad picture of John Welch, she used the Tanner’s as a citation In an endnote…did you read that? her is here source… http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingappendixa.htm
Click to expand...

Read it, not able to copy and paste.

Church leaders, especially First Presidency member Gordon B. Hinckley, continued to field criticism for some time for "being duped" and being "unable to discern the evil intentions of a man like Hofmann". Hinckley later noted: "I accepted him to come into my office on a basis of trust … I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however .... I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens."
Dew 1996, p. 432







http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingappendixa.htm

Markk said:
Her intent is to paint LDS historians as being ”spoiled” by LDS history, and that reading it will lead to a faith crisis and possibly leaving the Church.

So Ralf…what say you, in regards to chapter 1 and her general approach in what th ebook is trying to convey to it’s readers?

LOL..so you only boast on other posts in this thread, but not this one in particular…well I was the one that made the assertion, and you were boasting how you are so up to date on all this stuff,and that somehow I am not…so, again I am asking you to show me.

We disagree, that should not be a issue, we disagree about a lot of things we discussed in the past... glad you were able to read some of the
Web site on Book Reviews.... so yes or no, you have the book or your just getting it off the internet... yes or no, please don't deflect like usual. Just a yes or no... can you do that?

 

[Markk]

Just sharing my source, not going to write a research paper for you... I understand your frustration and you don't have a lot of time to discuss Bushman and JS Foundation... and I never used the word extensive (exhaustive) study, I wonder about your ability to bring into focus the narrative of my post... I'm a simple General Contractor and a pretend scholar...

Ralf…you keep challenging me to do, exactly what I did in this thread. I gave you a fair review and my opinion on the first chapter and my overall feeling of her book. It is not exactly an exhaustive literary piece, but a book faith promoting book with no objective balance.

I will certainly make time to discuss Bushman and the JS foundation…as I asked before, start a thread, and assert a position and narrative of what you want to discuss…and cite your back up that supports your assertions.

I have not seen yo assert anything yet, only pasting things without a narrative…if I missed it please link me to it and I’ll opine.

I an a contractor also…so we are on even ground there. I am certainly not a scholar, but I am open for a open and honest conversation and debate…on LDS doctrine, history or thought.

 

[Markk]

I have to chuckle at that, she is not pretending to be a scholar, guess you did not read it. She is only pointing out that His Book, Rough Stone Rolling is not a serious example of a thorough and all embracing Book that could pass a peer review by LDS Scholars who are more inclined to
do the research Stoodard has done...

Well, you say she is not a scholar, then say she able to offer peer reviews? You are just making stuff up Ralf, it is that obvious, like him or not, Bushman is an accomplished historian, in fact here is part of his resume…

“Richard Lyman Bushman (June 20, 1931) is an American historian and Gouverneur Morris Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University, having previously taught at Brigham Young University, Harvard University, Boston University, and the University of Delaware. Bushman is the author of Joseph Smith:Rough Stone Rolling, an important biography of Joseph Smith, progenitor of the Latter Day Saint movement. Bushman also was an editor for the Joseph Smith Papers Project and now serves on the national advisory board.[3][4] Bushman has been called "one of the most important scholars of American religious history" of the late-20th century. In 2012, a $3-million donation to the University of Virginiaestablished the Richard Lyman Bushman Chair of Mormon Studies in his honor” (Wikipedia)

Ralf he is among those accolada’s, Professor Emeritus at Columbia…”one of the most important scholars of American religious History.”

Also from Wikipedia…


Bushman addressing the John Whitmer Historical Association in 2011
Bushman's scholarship includes studies of early American social, cultural, and political history; American religious history, and early Latter-day Saint history. In 1968, Bushman's From Puritan to Yankee: Character and Social Order in Connecticut, 1690–1765 won the Bancroft Prize, an award given by the trustees of Columbia University for the year's best book on American history.[12] Bushman has also received the Phi Alpha Theta prize, and Evans Biography Awards, administered by the Mountain West Center for Regional Studies at Utah State University. He published Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, which was awarded best biography from the Mormon History Association in 1985.[16]Bushman has held Guggenheim, Huntington, National Humanities Center, and National Endowment for the Humanities fellowships; and served as president of the Mormon History Association (1985–1986).[20] Bushman was honored at the January 2011 annual meeting of the American Historical Association where a breakout session entitled "A Retrospective on the Scholarship of Richard Bushman" was heavily attended.[21]


here is a link to some of Bushman's peer reviewed works

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[Markk]

oppycock, you did not read it, you skimmed through it good buddy... you did not read where she said she was not attacking him personal like you suggest, she shares known facts about him that he even admits to in the person interview.... why do you make things up? That's right, you stated more or less, what is that suppose to mean? Show one attack on their character the isn't already know or admitted to...

LOL…Ralf, more or less means “more or less” it is a phrase that means approximately or somewhat…her premise or end point of the book is to paint these men as progressive men that abandoned the strict LDS narrative, and set aside the standard works, for a “progressive” slanted view of LDS history.

She calls Bushman several time a progressive in a negative view, I see that as a personal attack, and I am sure he does,,,and she even writes negatively about his wife, Claudia in chapter seven.

Ralf, the book is a passive aggressive hit piece on LDS historians that dared to research and write about LDS history that did not fit into the polyAnna narrative that Mormonism dwarfed into.

 

[Markk]

Read it, not able to copy and paste.

Church leaders, especially First Presidency member Gordon B. Hinckley, continued to field criticism for some time for "being duped" and being "unable to discern the evil intentions of a man like Hofmann". Hinckley later noted: "I accepted him to come into my office on a basis of trust … I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however .... I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens."
Dew 1996, p. 432

Not sure what you point is here…yes that is true, but it was not in her book, unless I missed it…? what is you point here?

 

[Markk]

We disagree, that should not be a issue, we disagree about a lot of things we discussed in the past... glad you were able to read some of the
Web site on Book Reviews.... so yes or no, you have the book or you’re just getting it off the internet... yes or no, please don't deflect like usual. Just a yes or no... can you do that?

LOL…Ralf, I own the book, and I told you I did, and that it was a waste of ten dollars, until now. Pick a page and I’ll paste if for you if you don’t believe me…if you noticed I asked you to do a study on Hofmann awhile back in that I knew you were reading this book by your negative attacks on Arrington, Bushman, progressives, etc…which is why one of the reasons I wrote you were predictable…you were acting like your were doing this serious study on progressivism and the church, all the while using a very bias book, poorly written and researched, and very petty. petty is probably a good word to describe the book. It has no meat.

Ralf I own Rough and Rolling Stone, Compton‘ book, Brain hales book on polygamy, and maybe 200 more books in my liabray on Mormonism, by Mormons. My GF was a patriarch, bishop, stake president and area seventy…I have many of his books. But most I picked up at the DI. So i am more that ready to have a fair and open discussion with you on LDS history and thought using only LDS sources…I believe that you might just find out what the church teaches, and what the history shows are two different narratives, that is if you are honest enough with yourself to take a look.

 

[Richard7]

Ralf…you keep challenging me to do, exactly what I did in this thread. I gave you a fair review and my opinion on the first chapter and my overall feeling of her book. It is not exactly an exhaustive literary piece, but a book faith promoting book with no objective balance.

I will certainly make time to discuss Bushman and the JS foundation…as I asked before, start a thread, and assert a position and narrative of what you want to discuss…and cite your back up that supports your assertions.

I have not seen yo assert anything yet, only pasting things without a narrative…if I missed it please link me to it and I’ll opine.

I an a contractor also…so we are on even ground there. I am certainly not a scholar, but I am open for a open and honest conversation and debate…on LDS doctrine, history or thought.

Not sure what you point is here…yes that is true, but it was not in her book, unless I missed it…? what is you point here?

I never claimed it was in the Book... showing a different side to your claim about the Tanners. yes the Tanners were involved and so was Pres. Hinkley and his perspective.. you selectively choose the narrative that boasters one side...

 

[Richard7]

LOL…Ralf, I own the book, and I told you I did, and that it was a waste of ten dollars, until now. Pick a page and I’ll paste if for you if you don’t believe me…if you noticed I asked you to do a study on Hofmann awhile back in that I knew you were reading this book by your negative attacks on Arrington, Bushman, progressives, etc…which is why one of the reasons I wrote you were predictable…you were acting like your were doing this serious study on progressivism and the church, all the while using a very bias book, poorly written and researched, and very petty. petty is probably a good word to describe the book. It has no meat.

Ralf I own Rough and Rolling Stone, Compton‘ book, Brain hales book on polygamy, and maybe 200 more books in my liabray on Mormonism, by Mormons. My GF was a patriarch, bishop, stake president and area seventy…I have many of his books. But most I picked up at the DI. So i am more that ready to have a fair and open discussion with you on LDS history and thought using only LDS sources…I believe that you might just find out what the church teaches, and what the history shows are two different narratives, that is if you are honest enough with yourself to take a look.

Good, $10.00 spent, wish I could refund you. I hate to see someone spend their money foolishly. I encourage you also to keep spending on the sources and books that our progressives and the NEW MORMONISM, after all I believe in capitalism and encourage everyone to participate in any way they can... Money spent, good or bad, keeps the system going.

Fair and open discussion and yet little to none participation on your part, using speculation and conjecture (guesswork) like you do with the words merit, becoming gods and Bushman. LOL also.

 

[Markk]

I never claimed it was in the Book... showing a different side to your claim about the Tanners. yes the Tanners were involved and so was Pres. Hinkley and his perspective.. you selectively choose the narrative that boasters one side...

No I didn’t I added parts that she left out in the the first chapter that she did not get to until later, at least parts of it…if you read the book as you claim you would have known that later in the book she concedes what I wrote about the Tanners, but never really touches on the GA being hoodwinked in such a fashion, but focus’s on the “progressive” historian believing the Letter was real?

The truth is the truth Ralf…The GA were fooled, but the Tanners were not. GBH did not pay the 40k, but SC did…and what was left out, unless I missed it, is that SC bought it, and donated it to the church, in that the GA believed it was real and wanted to obviously suppressed it…and they did not know they already had the real letter.

 

[Richard7]

No I didn’t I added parts that she left out in the the first chapter that she did not get to until later, at least parts of it…if you read the book as you claim you would have known that later in the book she concedes what I wrote about the Tanners, but never really touches on the GA being hoodwinked in such a fashion, but focus’s on the “progressive” historian believing the Letter was real?

The truth is the truth Ralf…The GA were fooled, but the Tanners were not. GBH did not pay the 40k, but SC did…and what was left out, unless I missed it, is that SC bought it, and donated it to the church, in that the GA believed it was real and wanted to obviously suppressed it…and they did not know they already had the real letter.

So again, this is about what you believe and its not about Stoddard, its about what you selectively want to post. I have admitted there is no quarrel with Bushman, I also stated he is in good standing as far as I know with the Church. He has admitted to being agnostic for awhile, and
did not believe in God before he went on his Mission... these are facts, not character assignations.

He would also have to admit he is progressive and not a traditionalist, again nothing wrong with that. He is also one that can accept that not all that is written about JS is accurate and has admitted using Fawn Brodie for source materials...

 

[Markk]

So again, this is about what you believe and its not about Stoddard, its about what you selectively want to post. I have admitted there is no quarrel with Bushman, I also stated he is in good standing as far as I know with the Church. He has admitted to being agnostic for awhile, and
did not believe in God before he went on his Mission... these are facts, not character assignations.

He would also have to admit he is progressive and not a traditionalist, again nothing wrong with that. He is also one that can accept that not all that is written about JS is accurate and has admitted using Fawn Brodie for source materials...

Back tracking a bit Ralf…Fawn Brodie’s book has a lot of very good info, and like all history piece, some things she got wrong.

You attacked the progressive movement in the church and labeled Bushman as a big part of that movement. Now that you have read the other side that I have been posting…you are backing down.

I am going to start a thread on Rough Stone Rolling soon, after these other thread run there coarse. I hope you can objectively join in…and we will see how much you really agree with him and more importantly how you treat what he writes….

I can’t post the whole book Ralf, but you can certainly counter what I write about the book, with the book? That is how it suppose to work, it is called a objective conversation…and study or review of the book so so proudly championed as a serious work…I believe it is just a simple petty book, that is designed to give members that don’t want to read and study objectively the History Of the Church…but to get a sense that everything is alright.

So what is you opinion of what the books intent is…and purpose?

 

[Richard7]

Back tracking a bit Ralf…Fawn Brodie’s book has a lot of very good info, and like all history piece, some things she got wrong.

Chuckle, what ever Markk.

You attacked the progressive movement in the church and labeled Bushman as a big part of that movement. Now that you have read the other side that I have been posting…you are backing down.

Not exactly Markk, I stated that he could be the reason many who have read his book are now suffering through a Faith Crisis... you have again misstated my reasons... you do that quite often good buddy. He is no doubt and would admit he believes in the New Mormonism and revised history therein..

I am going to start a thread on Rough Stone Rolling soon, after these other thread run there coarse. I hope you can objectively join in…and we will see how much you really agree with him and more importantly how you treat what he writes….

Objectively yes, but doubt you can be... just saying. I have even admitted to being wrong when I have been proven wrong, can you?

I can’t post the whole book Ralf, but you can certainly counter what I write about the book, with the book? That is how it suppose to work, it is called a objective conversation…and study or review of the book so so proudly championed as a serious work…I believe it is just a simple petty book, that is designed to give members that don’t want to read and study objectively the History Of the Church…but to get a sense that everything is alright.

So what is you opinion of what the books intent is…and purpose?

Well lets start with the truth, who did Bushman use for his sources, were they accurate, did he not also go to enemies of the Church who are not necessarily un bias or honest ... hmmm ... why are John Dehlin and Bill Reel supporters of Bushman. Have you ever listened to John Dehlin and Bill Reel on utube? I have. Why did the Church during the writing of his book want to distance themselves from him. Yes I agree he is working on the JS Papers and he is also in good standing I believe, which shows I have no contention with him personally but do not agree with his research or bias...

 

[Markk]

Not exactly Markk, I stated that he could be the reason many who have read his book are now suffering through a Faith Crisis... you have again misstated my reasons... you do that quite often good buddy. He is no doubt and would admit he believes in the New Mormonism and revised history therein..

LOL…you are talking in circles…you speak badly progressives and revisionists, and that he champions this and that people read his books annd doubt what the church has taught…that is a negative towards him Ralf.

Yes he is revising the narrative the church, which has developed over the years, but he is not really revising history , he is telling the history, and he believes that church has told a false narrative of history as my OP reads.

That is why I encourage you to go through his book with me…I would hav hoped you would have started it, I asked you and you declined so I will start it, hopefully later today after I get my chores done, and spend time with my grand daughter (LOL, I think we can both agree that is what it is all about these days …

Th ebook by Stoddard is giving you a false narrative on how to seek objective truths…and whats you blindly to ignore the truth. Bushman isn’t 100% right on everything, and some of his points are subjective…but there is a lot of his reach that is flat out true and contradicts the current narrative of the Church.

 

[Markk]

Objectively yes, but doubt you can be... just saying. I have even admitted to being wrong when I have been proven wrong, can you?

Certainly…but we have to enter into the discussion before that can happen. But again I will start the thread on Bushman's Book…

 

[Markk]

Well lets start with the truth, who did Bushman use for his sources, were they accurate, did he not also go to enemies of the Church who are not necessarily un bias or honest ... hmmm ... why are John Dehlin and Bill Reel supporters of Bushman. Have you ever listened to John Dehlin and Bill Reel on utube? I have. Why did the Church during the writing of his book want to distance themselves from him. Yes I agree he is working on the JS Papers and he is also in good standing I believe, which shows I have no contention with him personally but do not agree with his research or bias...

Ralf, you are again attacking Bushman and his work, when above you said you did not. Reel and Dehlin are not always right, nor are they always wrong…that is why we cite specifically those references and see if they holdup?

Ralf I hav e told you sevral times here in our conversation I do not agree with everything about Bushman, in fact I think he could say a lot more than he does…but again lets test his assertions, one at a time.

Think about what you said here, you have contentions with him because he works for the church? Ralf…Stoddards book passively slams him and others…I hav e to question whether you did read her book?

 

[brotherofJared]

Read it, not able to copy and paste.

LOL. She skips over facts... That is so funny. @Markk rarely substantiates.his claims, buty guess is these "facts" he's talking about are the missing propaganda narratives that he appears to crave, if not live by.

 

[Richard7]

LOL…you are talking in circles…you speak badly progressives and revisionists, and that he champions this and that people read his books annd doubt what the church has taught…that is a negative towards him Ralf.

That does not make any sense! Well of course as a person who goes after the lost sheep, I have a objective in this. You state I am negative and from your perspective you may have a point... but of course from your own point of view.... my point is to love thy neighbor and do this by looking out for them as any good neighbor would do... Only Bushman will be judged accordingly and God does know his heart and mind... I don't think he has jeopardized his salvation and never would judge him so.. What could I do? I can lead them or persuade them to research both sides before letting your faith crisis ruin you life...

Yes he is revising the narrative the church, which has developed over the years, but he is not really revising history , he is telling the history, and he believes that church has told a false narrative of history as my OP reads.

Again, that is for each person to decide... I have made up mine and hope that others will at least do the same through prayer, thorough ignoring or through study and research.... I hope you did the same...

That is why I encourage you to go through his book with me…I would hav hoped you would have started it, I asked you and you declined so I will start it, hopefully later today after I get my chores done, and spend time with my grand daughter (LOL, I think we can both agree that is what it is all about these days …

What book?

Th ebook by Stoddard is giving you a false narrative on how to seek objective truths…and whats you blindly to ignore the truth. Bushman isn’t 100% right on everything, and some of his points are subjective…but there is a lot of his reach that is flat out true and contradicts the current narrative of the Church.

We have been down that road before Markk. Brigham Young sold whisky and drinks, I believe owned a brewery, took the priesthood away from black, etc, etc.... we reached a loggerhead... but it was interesting anyway...

 

[Richard7]

Ralf, you are again attacking Bushman and his work, when above you said you did not. Reel and Dehlin are not always right, nor are they always wrong…that is why we cite specifically those references and see if they holdup?

Ralf I hav e told you sevral times here in our conversation I do not agree with everything about Bushman, in fact I think he could say a lot more than he does…but again lets test his assertions, one at a time.

Think about what you said here, you have contentions with him because he works for the church? Ralf…Stoddards book passively slams him and others…I hav e to question whether you did read her book?

Name any author that doesn't have criticisms... that's why the do Peer Review. Yes I have criticized using facts that he would even agree to... name something I said he would not admit to...

Name my contentions with him...I have claimed over and over that as far as I know, he is good standing with the church..