Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
First it critisizes the Church.
|
I find her highly critical of Joseph, and sympathetic to the church members. She takes her jabs at all organized religion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
Second, it's written by a woman critisizing the Church.
|
A brilliant woman at that. I don't think it adds or distracts from the book itself, her having a vagina. It might have influenced her scholarship on polygamy, and it did influence her on her feelings and viewpoints of Joseph's aesthetics.
For a woman to be critical in her time would be revolutionary, but today it's neither here nor there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
Third, it, and this is my main criticism of it, tries to psycholanalyze Joseph, putting thoughts and fears into him, which (a) she has never demonstrated she is qualified to do, as shown by her abomination of a book on Thomas Jefferson, and (b) doesn't have very good research to support her major theses.
|
His analysis of Joseph is what is straining in the book. She attempts to connect dots that may, or may not have existed, by connecting the stories, examples, and experiences of the people intimately associated with Joseph. I think she does a fantasticate job of nailing the feelings of the saints, the feelings of the people associated with Joseph and the situations surrounding the early members. Her insights into early church membership, relationships with the prophet, comings and goings, missteps and achievements are highly worthwhile and stand the test of time.
The content would be shocking and troublesome for some members, for others it might reiterate certain feelings, and for others, a good read to gain a different perspective on the man of our restoration.