Posted on 06/30/2008 6:25:14 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Very interesting. My husband and I enjoy “History Detectives.”
Yes, I thought it interesting too. It kind of made me chuckle that the owner was rather disappointed. I guess she really wanted to believe that book.
A small “inaccuracy” of your own?
In July 1890, the Territory of Wyoming, which allowed women to vote, was admitted as a state. Wyoming became the first state with women suffrage. By 1900, Utah, Colorado, and Idaho joined Wyoming in allowing women to vote.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
Maybe she just wanted to believe that she had a real, old, true historical document, rather than a 19th-century fiction. Benefit of the doubt for the owner, unless there’s other evidence of animus toward Mormons.
“But it certainly seemed as if she would’ve been more glad if Mormon women really had been tied to trees and whipped.”
I have no doubt she wished Mormon women really had been tied to trees and whipped. Having an excuse to justify one’s bigotry is very comforting. There are lots of threads in the Religion forum that contain examples of this kind of attitude.
Sorry about that. I didn’t do any fact checking, just relied on my memory. Thanks for the correction! I just went and did some research. It looks like Wyoming granted women the right to vote a couple of months before Utah.
Bingo.
Thanks for posting this.
***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.” ***
So, can we hold the Book of Mormon to the same standards of evidence?
Well, not to keep beating a dead horse but 1890 to 1900 is 120 months.
Fake-No value. Real-wooohooo, E-Bay here I come!
I ‘spect she is disappointed.
Too bad they don't take a look at the various artifacts that the Mormons claim support their views re: native americans.
After Utah was a state, then women were granted the right to vote again in 1895. The privilege was taken away by the federal courts in 1887. Initially they felt that women would vote polygamy out, but when that didn't happen, the federal courts revoked their right to vote.
Wyoming as a state granted women the right to vote in 1890. Source: Women's suffrage in Utah
Which would be?
I don’t have a list off hand.. do you deny that the LDS claims all sorts of Indian artifacts as supporting the BOM?
What artifacts? If you’re talking about the tours to Guatemala to see the ruins, not church sponsored. DNA? I’ve gone over that one on this forum many times. Has this been discussed in church? Yes, this year we’re studying the Book of Mormon. However, the Book of Mormon has so many other things in it to study (such as Christ visiting the Americas after his death) that the discussion about the heritage of the American Indians didn’t last long.
I’ve heard that some American Indians have a tradition of a Great White Father. It’s easy to make the link to Christ, but that isn’t church doctrine.
And there are various points of view within the LDS church as to where the Book of Mormon took place. I always assumed it was over North America and South America. For awhile, some thought it was Central America. Basically, I know the Book of Mormon is true because I have read it, prayed about it, and received an answer from the Spirit that it is true. Physical artifacts never converted anyone.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=artifacts+supporting+book+of+mormon
Besides the Central American claims, which some people claim is not LDS supported, they claim 'evidence' from North America as well.
There are a lot of problems with that show and the historical methdologies and techniques that they employ during their cases. First off, none of the four “detectives” are real historians, with the possible exception of Gwnedolyn Wright, who’s an architectural historian. Elyse Luray and Wes Cowan are appraisers and auctioneers, while Tukufu Zuberi (real name—Antonio McDaniel) is a sociologist. I’ve seen them make mistakes and draw false conclusions based upon what they want their investigations to reveal. So, my advice to everyone who watches that show is to take it with a grain of salt.
Interpretation of historical evidence is always as much of an art as a science, and anyone's conclusions are subject to a challenge.
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.