Posted on 06/30/2008 6:25:14 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Viewers of tonight's season premiere of "History Detectives" will learn that a book about the horrors of "Female Life Among the Mormons" is a work of fiction.
And the woman who owns the 1856 volume will be "disappointed" by that news.
"History Detectives" (8 p.m., Ch. 7) is a fascinating series in which historical objects are examined to determine if they're authentic. (Tonight's other two segments feature a World War II diary and a coin shot by Annie Oakley.)
In the case of the 1856 book about the horrors of Mormon polygamy, Marcie Waterman Murray of Stanfordville, N.Y., bought it at an auction and wants to know who wrote it. (There's no author listed.)
"I was very moved by this book. It really stayed with me a long time. I've become fascinated with it," Murray says.
What stayed with her is a barbaric account, written in the first person, of a young woman who married a Mormon elder in New York and traveled to Utah with Brigham Young. She suffered the "abominations" of polygamy and the "degradation it imposes on females."
That includes one account of a misbehaving wife who was stripped nude, tied to a tree and whipped until "blood ran to the ground."
Enter Tukufu Zuberi from "History Detectives."
"You don't know if this is a real book. You don't know if it's really from the 19th century. You don't know what it is," Zuberi said in a phone interview with the Deseret News. "But it is a document which definitely offers a skewed view toward marriage among Mormons.
"It puts (women) on the level of being slaves. You can take it as something that's either laughable, looking at it today, or something that really provided fuel for those who were anti-Mormon back in the 19th century."
Without detailing the entire episode, Zuberi quickly discovers that this is not a genuine history. Among other things, it purports to tell the story of Joseph Smith's death and gets it flat-out wrong.
And the show's conclusions are clear. "It seems that our book is little more than pulp fiction, and shot through with historical errors," Zuberi says in the show.
The segment briefly outlines 19th-century LDS history, including the effort to demonize Mormons.
"Someone could write it today in order to kind of speak badly of the Mormons," Zuberi said. "Someone could've written it then to speak badly of the Mormons. And that's our task — to find out."
He does his best to track down the author, including using "some high-tech stuff to determine who wrote the book and determine the authenticity or lack thereof."
"This one I was surprised by. The Mormon story has a lot of twists and turns."
In 21st-century Utah, "Female Life Among the Mormons" seems silly, even campy. But, obviously, the book's owner thought — perhaps hoped — it was genuine.
Upon learning that it's fiction, she gasps and says, "I'm actually a little disappointed. But I'm glad to know the truth."
But it certainly seemed as if she would've been more glad if Mormon women really had been tied to trees and whipped.
How do you know? Link, please.
Remember the mormons say that the American Indians were Jews from Israel...
How do you know they weren’t?
Since Jesus was a Jew and therefore looked like them and would have been bronze like them... Link please.
You Mormon bashing jokers tell much worse lies than the error in a date -- corrected long before you posted this bigotted nonsense. And I could truthfully call you worse, but Jim doesn't like that kind of language on the forum.
Moreover, the threads you all are peddling are all of the same theme - to wit - Mormonism is true and there is "evidence" for it.
And the twaddle you all are pedding are always the same lies -- Mormons are not Christians, and do not worshilp The Christ.
The problem is, the "evidence" does not stand up to scrutiny.
You have yet to present any "evidence" to prove your lie about Mormons not being Christians.
I have heard you post that you prayed, and the spirit told you Mormonism is true.
Be careful what "spirit" you are listening too. Satan prowls the earth as a lion ready to devour, and the Evil One has false signals and signs everywhere. Jesus said so. And you have absolute proof that the Spirit who answered her prayer was from Satan? You seem to be pretty close to him to know which people's prayers he answers.
Or is it that you don't believe the Holy Spirit lives or that just sits on his hand all day, paying no attention to anyone?
What does your cult teach about that? Take care.
You had better start taking your own advice about that.
Oh, goody. An expert on everything that the Holy Spirit teaches -- particularly to all Mormons.
I would ask you to tell us wht the Spitit has told to all Mormons, but I don't think space on this forum will allow -- there are, after some 13,000,000 of them, and growing.
How about you justifying your cult's actions, what ever they may be? Or are you ashamed to tell us cult you belong to so we can see if we can round up a few bigots like you to rip you cult to shreds, and see how you like it?
He won't.
Please tell me where to find that post.
Translation: become a Mormon-bashing bigot first.
You are an engineer? Me too. Aerospace. We are taught to examine and think.
Then you should try that once in a while, and see if you, in your bigotry, aren't doing wht you claim so strongly to condemn in others.
How does that excuse you bogotry?
Because he doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit can have a place in people's lives, he is a very un-Christian Christian, and he's meaner than a trod-upon cottonmouth.
HAHAHA Hoisted by his own petard, HAHAHA
Pay particular to attention to the last sentence in the following definition of 'petard' -- it is most appropriate here:
"To be "hoist by [or with] your own petard" is to be blown up by your own bomb. A petard was a medieval engine of war consisting originally of a bell-shaped metal container filled with explosives. It was used to blow in a door or a gate or breach a wall. Premature explosion was an ever-present danger. In other words, you could be hoist by your own petard. But what is also interesting is the derivation of the word "petard". It comes from the French word peter, meaning to break wind."
And you will be right up front leading them.
+++++++++++++++++
I did not ask you to spit out scriptures that say you might be saved.
How do YOU know YOU are among the elect that God has already saved?
And, for the third time now, let me ask you --what is your faith again?
And, again, what cult do you belong to?
From what I have read on seen so far, I haven't seen a true Christian who is against Mormonism. I've seen a lot of blather and bigotry from a lot of scudders her who wouldn't know a real Christian if he saw one.
+++++++++++++++++++
you know, you are right about one thing.
There is a lot of personal responsibility in God's Church.
From time to time, I think I will give up the responsibility and join a group like your's, so I no longer have any responsibility.
REAL LIFE:
It is hard to separate your comments from the comments of God's servants that you quoted from. And I already know the difference.
Please go back and highlight your summaries and comments, so those who do not already know our teachings can tell the difference of our teachings compared to your mistaken summaries.
“EASY” GRACE
On one occasion I was lecturing on a related subject in a small town in Nevada. I explained that perfection was not required of us all at once but that we are obligated to do all we can while the Savior has promised to do the rest. After the lecture someone came up to me and said, “Dr. Robinson, do you know what this means? It means I don't have to can peaches this year!” At this there was a general round of laughter, but when it subsided, I quickly responded, “Oh no, my friend, you have misunderstood me. That's not what it means at all. If you really believe that God expects you to can peaches (and that's an arguable proposition), then you must can all the peaches you're able to can. All this doctrine means is that you don't need to feel guilty or worry about the peaches you can't can.”
This is not a doctrine of “easy” grace. There is no virtue one might have possessed before entering the covenant that one may then discard or renounce upon entering the covenant—without violating the covenant. The gospel covenant is not an excuse to work beneath our abilities. The covenant requires more than merely wishing we were better; we've got to actually do what is within our power. Although personal perfection is not required of us right now, our best attempt at it is. The good news is that God will not require of us more than the best we can do, but the bad news is he will not accept less than that either.
Moreover, there is really no such thing as “easy” grace because the partnership with Christ isn't easy—it calls for the best and the highest within us. He requires our loyalty, our service to God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. He demands ongoing repentance and continual recommitment. And he offers no proof and no guarantee beyond the private witness of the Spirit that he can do what he promises. Rather, he asks us to trust him, to accept his word on faith.
The Lord's present law of temporal salvation (the welfare program) works on essentially the same terms as its spiritual counterpart. Individuals in need of temporal help are required to contribute all they can toward the desired goal. They are required to expend all their own resources, however great or small these may be. Then the Lord through the Church and its members adds whatever else may be necessary. When properly administered, the temporal arrangement is a partnership that meets an individual's honest needs while still demanding his or her best efforts. Moreover, the arrangement assumes progress will be made, and it aims eventually at making the individual self-sufficient.
The principle of spiritual welfare is no different. As we demonstrate our good faith by doing all that we can and consecrating all our own resources to the common purpose, the grace of God and the atonement of Christ are sufficient to meet all our other needs, but the covenant still demands our best efforts, assumes progress will be made, and aims at eventually making us self-sufficient as far as righteousness is concerned.
Stephen E. Robinson, Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 88.)
Are you serious?
Pitches in the dirt, that’s all, just aimed to get a rise out of folks then get the thread pulled since it presents facts not in their best interest, and in a public forum as well.
Best to ignore them...
++++++++++++++++++
Does this mean you are willing to accept second and third hand information from someone with an agenda, instead of studying the document that had a good chance of being misused?
In court I think the difference would be between testimony from direct personal knowledge and testimony from hearsay evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.