In part 4 of this multi-part interview with Dr. Richard Bushman, the world’s foremost scholar on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, Brother Bushman discusses the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the credibility of the 3 and 8 witnesses to the Book of Mormon.
To access this interview, subscribe via iTunes, or click here to listen to the audio directly.
Maybe I misunderstood Bushman but it appears that he takes an agnostic view of the historicity of the BoM thinking there isn’t enough evidence on either side. He then goes on to say that he goes along with Terryl Givens and I have to say I have a hard time with this notion that believing in the BoM is a moral choice, in that either you want there to be a world where prophets speak to God – if so you are making a moral choice, and the BoM makes sense – and if you don’t want to live in that world, and don’t want God to be speaking to prophets and guiding them then it won’t make sense to believe in the BoM. This seems like a false dichotomy when it isn’t so black and white; there are other possibilities like you are indifferent to prophets and your criteria for judging the BoM text is based on truth rather than desire. So to me it’s a false dilemma saying you either want to believe in supernatural claims or engage in magical thinking regarding the BoM or you don’t, and if you do you’re somehow moral and if not you are somehow immoral. This clearly confuses morality with epistemology and one could even say it is unethical to believe in something on insufficient evidence (see The Ethics of Belief by W.K. Clifford).
Does Dan Vogel, Grant Palmer, and Faun Brodie just not want to believe God is speaking to the prophet-characters in the BoM and don’t want to have the supernatural/magical worldview needed for the BoM to make sense, and that is why it doesn’t make sense to them? Or is there conclusions based on historical analysis and the evidence?
Bushman’s notion of it being a moral choice based on one’s worldview also fails to carry weight when one realizes one can ask the same question about the Koran; for a Muslim could just as easily say those who reject the Koran just don’t want to live in a world where Allah speaks to His prophet. Such a statement also sounds smug to me, much like the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian view. As an LDS missionary when Christian Fundamentalists presented their doctrine to me and I would say to them, same as I do now, that their doctrines don’t make sense to me many of them would say, “Well, you just don’t want to follow God,” or “you don’t like his plan,” and “you just don’t like God’s ways.”
I’ve asked LDS friends and family if they could see themselves appreciating the BoM as a mythological text and they vehemently say “no.” Their attitude is one of thinking that it is the keystone of their religion, and the most correct book on earth. They side with Orson Pratt who said, “This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man, affecting both the temporal and eternal interests of every people under heaven to the same extent and in the same degree that the message of Noah affected the inhabitants of the old world. If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as the word of God, and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair” (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p. 1, 1850).
Yet there are some intellectuals both inside and outside the church (unfortunately mostly outside) who take a Joseph Campbell approach to the BoM. Their thoughts are best conveyed in the thesis of the book American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (See http://www.signaturebooks.com/apocrypha.htm).
In my opinion the LDS church is currently just not set up to embrace a mythological/non-literal interpretation of the BoM. Let me make a comparison. John Shelby Spong is a popular Christian scholar who is one of the leaders in Liberal/Progressive Christianity along with Marcus Borg and John D. Crossan. I have visited liberal churches like the United Church of Christ and find that they being less creedal, less dogmatic, and more behavior-centered rather than dogma-centered tolerate Spong to the point of some pastors in that church will even have classes where they use Spong’s books as a study guide. That would be UNHEARD OF in an Evangelical Christian church. There is just no room for a mythological interpretation of the Bible in Fundamentalism, it must be taken literally or you are not a “true Christian.” In the same vein, viewing the BoM nonliterally, as American Apocrypha, is like having a Spongian view of the Bible while attending a Fundamentalist Baptist Church. You certainly won’t fit in theologically and you certainly better keep your mouth shut. Or as Bushman suggests you can become a cafeteria Mormon and silently doubt certain doctrines, like the historicity of the BoM, and “just not mention” it. Is it worth it? That is up to the individual to decide I guess.
This doesn’t mean the LDS church can’t change and progress toward being more accepting of a nonliteral approach to the BoM or even adopting such a view as a church. I’m sure many of the listeners of this podcast have a nonliteral view. Perhaps this podcast will encourage a dialogue that can take place more often at church on this subject. Grant Palmer is still active and yet he doubts the historicity of the BoM even publishing a book to that effect. So perhaps there is hope for change?
Regarding the BoM witnesses and the issue of what “spiritual eyes” means, didn’t Martin Harris claim to have seen Jesus in the shape of a deer and walked and talked with him for two or three miles? Did he see the talking deer, not like seeing a pen on a table, but with his spiritual eyes? Didn’t some of the eight witnesses claim the event was based on the supernatural and not a physical event? Didn’t John Whitmer, in the History of the Church claim that “they were shown to me by a supernatural power”? Why did many of the BoM witnesses become Strangites? If we are to believe the BoM witnesse’s testimonies shouldn’t we also believe the testimonies of James Jesse Strang’s very similar claims? (see http://www.strangite.org/Law.htm#Testimony). My point is that I agree with Bushman in that these men were not flawless.
[Removed the final 2 sentences....they linked to an anti-Mormon web site. I can handle anti-Mormon web sites, but my listeners have requested that I not do that, to allow them to feel comfortable coming around. Please understand.]
A thought experiment: How would most LDS react if the church hierarchy decreed that a nonliteral interpretation of the BoM is acceptable? Would Mormonism still be as compelling? Mormonism has to be compelling enough for people to wear an extra layer of clothing in the summer, pay 10% of their income, restrict activities once a week, not view pornography, not drink coffee, etc.
Jake,
I firmly believe that the church would become much less strong if it did this–and by strong I mean activity rates, tithing receipts, and “bums in seats.”
This is their dilemma. And it’s why I only have compassion for them. I’d HATE their job.
Jake,
The church doesn’t operate that way. The change won’t come by pronouncement. The church will just stop emphasizing the literalness of the BOM or ignore it altogether. Case in point: the whole Lamanite thing. It used to be a major tenet of the faith, with great emphasis in the 60s and 70s that the American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites. SWK talked a LOT about the Lamanites and the fulfillment of BOM prophecies: that the Lamanites (i.e. Indians of North and South America and Pacific Islanders) were “blossoming as the rose.” You had the Indian Placement Program, entire issues of the church magazine devoted to the Lamanites, General Conference talks, a BYU entertaining group called the Lamanite Generation.
So how does the church handle the fact that science has pretty much debunked the idea that Indians are descendants of Middle Eastern immigrants who arrived in the New World less than 4000 years ago? Well, they changed the name of the Lamanite Generation. They stop mentioning Lamanites in General Conference. There is little to no mention of all the prophecies about the Lamanites from the BOM, the D&C and earlier church leaders. Yesterday in my EQ class, we talked about the life of SWK. The instructor put up on the board a list of things SWK is remembered for (about 10 items). His work with the Lamanites? Not mentioned (until I brought it up). Want info on the DNA issue from lds.org? They provide a couple links to some lame apologetic obfuscations.
The church doesn’t need to come out with some great proclamation from the twelve and the FP (they save those for really important stuff like bashing gays). It can just change slowly. GA’s stop using the BOM in GC in a literalist way; manuals are rewritten in a way that downplays or ignores historicity; the “spiritual power” of the book is emphasized, etc.
John, I agree with this but take a step and look at what it appears to me you’re saying. Compare it to executives at Enron making the same argument.
“I firmly believe that Enron would become much less strong if we came clean to the stockholders–and by strong I mean the value of Enron’s stock would plummet.”
What you’re arguing for, John, is considered dishonest in the real world. People go to prison for it.
I know we’ve had this discussion already in the Part I comments but your comment requires the same response.
The Church that I was raised in taught me to stand for truth. It’s disturbing to me to see how far the Church has backpeddled on that. Now the best it can muster seems to be:
“Stand for Something!”
It’s troubling to me to see people argue for such a wishy washy standard.
John,
I think you are probably right, but you and I are still active. Are we justified in assuming that most Mormons would react differently from us? I believe they probably would, but I can’t easily justify that belief.
Jeff,
Your supposition presupposes that none of the powers that be really hold the Book of Mormon to be literal. It is only dishonest if you lack the belief yourself. Personally, I think you are really assuming a lot there. But I suppose we all tend to believe that if we feel a certain way about things, that is the only way anyone can react to the same situation.
Hypothetical:
Let’s say the church can tell the truth about something but knows that doing so will result in a substantial loss of tithing dollars and perhaps a drop in membership numbers. Covering up the unsavory truth will result, at least in the short run, in migher tithing revenues and modest growth in membership. What should the church do? John, you’ve identified the dilemma. What’s the right thing to do?
Can we compare the actions of the LDS church with those of the RLDS (now Community of Christ) church over the last 20 years as a real-world case study of this dilemma?
Jake,
I think the history and state of the Reorganized LDS Church is a good data point.
Too much change and candor too quickly = a gutted church.
That largely informs my opinion, along w/ all my experience tracking those exposed to tough LDS history over time. The trend always seems to be not favorable to orthodoxy.
Quick observation: CTR does not mean Choose The Easy.
Jeff,
By the standard you appear to champion, every religion in the world that offers unseen and unsubstantiated benefits is a criminal organization. Why? Because they encourage and take donations from their parishoners, which are predicated to no small degree on the notion that there is a reward in heaven we have no way of corroborating.
While I think this view is not worth considering, I also believe that the LDS Church cannot be singled out for facing this kind of dilemma. The real benefits of belonging to a church are the community and spiritual experiences. People appear to derive *more* benefit from these experiences if the religion makes bold claims. Unfortunately, the claims made usually cannot be verified.
This is where the comparison of business and religion breaks down. Everyone expects businesses to make good on their claims in the real world–the most important of which is to make investors wealthy. I doubt anyone really expects their churches to provide hard evidence of heavenly rewards and angels in this world.
People are generally complicit in the deferral of this kind of proof–they call it the requirement of faith. Indeed, it is sometimes in contravention of the evidence that people insist on believing. What is to be done when those who contribute their time and money to religion adopt this standard willingly?
Equality,
I think that the right and responsible thing to do is exactly what they’re doing. Go slow. Be respectful of role the church plays in people’s lives. Slowly reorient towards more positive things. Don’t do anything to call undue attention to the problems. See if you can slowly morph the church into something more positive/honest–but in a way that is productive and not destructive to the lives of those immersed within.
I know SOOO many people that say the honest/ethical thing to do is to stand up and say, “We were all wrong! This is all a fraud! But stick with us anyway!!!”
I don’t see this as honest/ethical at all. I would see this as totally and completely irresponsible.
You can’t yank the floor out from someone unless you have something solid to replace it with.
Truth is not as concrete and black/white as any of us think (is exmormon.org an pillar of truth? hardly)–so what is good/productive needs to be a very heavy consideration.
I should also add that I still believe that the brethren sincerely believe the church and BOM to be true w/ a capital T–I don’t mean to imply that they are consciously trying to maintain a noble lie. I see little to no evidence of this.
John
In some ways it is not fair to bring the RLDS Church into this discussion. There are reasons for the size of their membership and contributions that have nothing to do with honesty regarding scholarship. In terms of tithing, they adhered to a different standard that required less giving on the part of the members in the first place.
The recent major schism actually resulted from the extension of priesthood to women by the authority of revelation to their prophet. It is not in response to scholarship that people left that time, but in disagreement with purported revelation. In other words, the issues invloved in the state of the RLDS Church (Community of Christ, in point of fact) are more complex than we tend to make them out to be.
John,
I think I mostly agree with your comment #12. It’s sort of a NOM approach writ large.
I do think there are some things the Brethren know are not literally true that they allow the members to continue believing out of expediency. I won’t list them so as not to completely derail the thread. But I also agree that the Brethren probably are true believers in a literalist sense in the Book of Mormon and so are not consciously peddling untruths for the sake of keeping tithing revenues and activity rates up.
I am actually less concerned about the church, from the top, promoting a less literal view of BOM history than I am about the church tolerating those who might hold such views and even might dare to, gasp!, publish them.
Equality–I’d enjoy reading your list, actually.
Here’s a question though – is it unethical/dishonest to continue to teach things that hard evidence seems to contradict? In other words, if we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the BOA is not a literal translation of the Egyptian scrolls, is it dishonest to continue to teach that JS “translated” the BOA from the papyrus (just for example’s sake, not to side track to the BOA issue).
I’m thinking about me AND the general church leadership for purposes of this question. I can’t presume to know what evidence/facts GAs have/know on the BOM as a literal history, for example….but I know that for me there are orthodox views like this that evidence more than contradicts.
Don’t I have an ethical responsiblity to teach the truth (if I’m serving in a church calling, for example)?
When I went to visit my SP about these issues…he was awesome to listen and discuss my concerns in a non-judgemental way, but his parting comment was something to the effect that “even though it’s true, we still don’t teach it”. Maybe this goes back to the appropriate forum for this type of discussion (I was working with the youth at the time) but don’t I have at least a little bit of an obligation not to lie (to include not telling the whole story)?
”
If trends continue; and if the rate of the exodus continues to rise (as the FAIR apologist John inteviewed indicated), then I think it’s inevitable that eventually the Church will have to come clean anyway. What I see going on in the Church; the ongoing “effort to suppress” that I see happening, I think will in the end be futile.
I think the Church will survive it, but I think the longer it delays doing what it has taught all of us is “the right thing” then the harder time it will have getting through what seems to be looming on its horizon. You can’t keep truth bound and gagged forever. History will attest to that. Over the last few thousand years human progress I think its fair to describe human progress as a process of magical thinking giving way to rational thinking. I don’t think there is one example of it moving in the other direction. All indications are, that trend will continue.
So John, in that light I’m not so sure that delaying the inevitable, IS the responsible thing to do. The sooner the Church faces up to its past sins, I think the more integrity its leaders will preserve in the eyes of the remaining members when it is finally left no choice but to come clean.
Trevor, let’s take a look at this in another context. Snake-oil salesman. They too take money from people whom they convince will receive a benefit, which is usually only a benefit in the mind of the ‘customer.’ Is that wrong? Because we call it a religious transaction doesn’t change what it really is.
Jeff,
You’ve convinced me. The Church isn’t true, God doesn’t exist. I’m glad you came along to teach me the Truth and allow me to live my life with true integrity. Your keen sense of logic has inspired me to love my neighbors more. Thank you.
Rusty, I can’t fault you for saying that. I know exactly where you’re coming from. But I think you’ll find that religion does not have a monopoly on promoting love, honor, integrity, justice, equality and morality.
john,
what is profitable and what is ethical are not one in the same, whether the widget is religion or natural gas. it may not be profitable to come clean on historical things, but it may certainly be ethical. and, the longer they perpetuate the misinformation as the facts seep out through the internet and other sources, the greater the consequence will be of coming clean. and at that point, there will be no room for a revelation, it will be blatantly and obviously reactionary.
many would stay in this community regardless of what the leaders do. what is the worry? that there will be a fundamentalist uprising if the church comes clean? (already happened many times and it will happen for again for a variety of reasons) an exodus? (in the works, they are losing the most informed people quickly) or a reduction of tithing? (well duh. people arent getting what they are paying for. tithing is not an entitlement for hells sake. we arent still buying mattel handheld football games with the little red dashes just to make mattel feel good or to be in a mattel footbal I and II club.)
and back to bushman. i am actually fine with all his faith based beliefs and willingness to look beyond the facts due to this faith. whatever. he can do that. but i am not at all fine with the qualification that he is a historian and this is some sort of a history book. it has historical facts, but it sure doesnt meet the standards one would expect from a tenured professor of columbia. i am not a history guy (domo? equality?) i challenge anyone to find a contemporary publication of a historical nature where the author qualifies his work based on faith. and, more, where the author assails his critics, in the preface, for their lack of faith or spirituality.
thats all fine and dandy for a religious perspective on whatever, but for a historical publication? i aint buyin it.
bushman and daniel peterson should agree to joust for this throne.
rusty,
oh. i am so sorry that you are so hurt and that you feel so violated that you need to respond so sarcastically. oh my oh my. how can we help you? do you need some cyber cookies and a cyber blessing from equality?
though it may hurt you, this is really not a debate about whether the church is true, it is about whether the church leaders tell the truth. i am so sad that you are confused by that. my deepest sympathies are extended to you. i do hope that you can be nourished and strengthened and travel home in safety today, despite your despair in being temporarily convinced that the church isnt true.
i know the church is true. i spent many hours, often three or more consecutive hours, truthfully in the church.
though, that doesnt mean the church tells the truth. only that it truly is a church. got it?
itnojcatfsm,a.
I think you’ll find that religion does not have a monopoly on promoting love, honor, integrity, justice, equality and morality.
Jeff, I fully agree. Even though I think you’ll have a difficult time finding a promoter of those things that doesn’t have its own issues, it’s besides the point. The Mormon religion just happens to be the one that has taught me those virtues better than anything else out there.
All I’m saying is that you’re going to have a difficult time coming to a Mormon blog and convincing believing Mormons that their leaders are immoral/unethical/intenionally deceptive. Similarly, Blake is going to have a difficult time convincing you (and other non-magical-believers) that the Mormon Church has a leg to stand on. That’s all. But if you still think it’s worth your time and effort, go for it (and FWIW, I appreciate your civility).
Mayan Elephant,
Okay.
OK, John, you asked for it. Here’s a partial list of things I think the Brethren know are not true or are misrepresentations, but which they allow members to believe out of expediency (either by actively promoting these ideas or doing nothing to correct them):
1.Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by looking at the plates through the Urim and Thummim. Church art invariably depicts Joseph translating with the plates in full view (often in view of the scribe) and not with the peepstone in a hat;
2.The BOA was translated from Egyptian hieroglyphs written by the hand of Abraham on papyrus;
3. Polygamy officially ceased in the LDS church upon issuance of the first manifesto by Wilford Woodruff in 1890 (and not after the second manifesto issued by Joseph F. Smith in 1904–D. Michael Quinn was disciplined by the church for revealing this unconfortable fact);
4. The church is the fastest growing religion in the world (or the U.S.)(a statement often repeated but demonstrably false);
5. Church membership numbers accurately reflect the number of people who consider themselves Mormon (repeated references to the church’s membership numbers, which the Brethren know are bogus);
6. Joseph Smith went to his death as a “lamb to the slaughter,” willingly laying down his life as a martyr (see the latest film at the JS Mem. Bldg. for example) (actually, he went down a-shootin’);
7. The Word of Wisdom as taught and practiced in the church today has been in force since Joseph Smith received the revelation in 1833 (the church has edited the History of the Church to delete any references to Joseph Smith drinking beer or wine, for example. In reality, today’s WoW can trace its history to Heber J. Grant getting peeved that the Utah saints disobeyed his counsel and voted to repeal Prohibition);
8. Each name representing someone who is deceased is used only once in the temple (at some temples, names are recycled, generating a whole lot of unnecessary busywork);
9. Garments provide the wearer with protection from physical injury;
10. Joseph Smith was completely innocent of wrongdoing and his death resulted from persecution by anti-Mormons who had no other motivation than Satan-inspired hatred for the leader of Christ’s restored church (the whole polygamy/press-smashing thing, well, lets not mention that).
Note, I am not arguing that any of these things makes the church “not true.” Just in case any of the uber-faithful might want to argue that point. I’m just saying there are a lot of inconvenient truths the Brethren would rather not talk about. And if the members have misconceptions about certain things from church history, that’s OK, even perhaps desirable.
After all, some truths are not very useful. . . . Hey, that’s pretty good. Maybe someone can send that line to Elder Packer to use in a speech sometime.
Uh oh. ME has descended. Now we’re in BIG trouble.
I’ll just ask a few things again…and these are for everyone, not just ME.
–Please be as respectful to a believing Mormon as you would be to a believing Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew.
–Do not call names or be sarcastic/insulting.
–I have NO interest in the true/not true discussion here. Please take that discussion elsewhere (this is just a reminder).
–Reasonable people can disagree on ALL these points being made. Please don’t speak as though your approach is the only credible one. That’s just plain ignorant.
–No linking to anti-Mormon web sites.
If things get out of control, I’ll have to throw people in the penalty box, or close down the comments. I hate doing that.
John,
You’ve mentioned a couple times no linking to so-called anti-Mormon websites. I wonder if this is simply a “know it when you see it” kind of standard. It’s been my experience that what some might term anti-Mormon others would see as pro-Mormon. My TBM MIL, for example, saw my copy of Rough Stone Rolling on my bookshelf and told my son that it was one of the most anti-Mormon books ever written. I doubt Professor Bushman would agree with her assessment. I also know that the Bishop in my ward indicated that there were a few members of our congregation whose testimonies were rocked by reading Rough Stone Rolling. Again, probably not Professor Bushman’s intent.
Equality,
I totally agree that virtually everything in this conversation is subjective. Just use your best discretion. exmormon.org and lds-mormon.com are what I’m talking about. And Bill Kempton’s stuff, for example.
John,
Great interview but I disagree with your guest’s characterization of individuals who listen to people like Grant Palmer as being “bullied” because they find their arguments to be compelling. There is a mountain of evidence to support the position that the foundational claims of mormonism are fraudulent. There is not so much as a helmet or sword that has been found to support the foundational claims. Rational, logical thinking and a heavy dose of common sense and reality lead many to conclude mormonism is fundamentally, irreparably flawed.
Keep the interviews coming – they are informative and enjoyable.
Wes
john, what about believers in the flying spaghetti monster?
i agree to follow the guidelines, and i think i have done so, with the exception of a wee bit of countersarcasm.
the discussion of true/not true? you dont want that? cmon john. really. the whole point of bushmans book was to share historical truths, was it not? to have him on here, and shut down the debate on the truths/facts he published is a bit silly.
the debate about whether the church is true or not is one of semantics. when members or leaders say “the church is true” they arent saying anything at all. its as meaningful as saying “oregon state university is true,” or, “microsoft is true.”
discussing historical claims as true or untrue, is, on the other hand, less subjective and is the reason that authors write books and why consumers buy them. this gets down to my very criticism of bushman, he disqualifies his critics for lacking his subjective and faithful perspective. that is odd for a historian. no?
ME,
Did Bushman disqualify critics? If you listen to the interviews, he seems to bend over backwards to openly acknowledge and even validate critics of Joseph Smith, the church, etc.
I just wish that apologists and disaffected were willing to respect each other’s positions–and realize that reasonable people can sincerely disagree as to what is “true” or “moral” or “ethical” or “fair.”
I want more light, and less heat, that’s all. Less of the same old tired debates about conspiracies etc, and more about trying to empathize/understand the various positions on the matter, and then trying to come up with productive solutions.
That’s all I’m trying to do. Bring people together without them alienating each other–to find some productive end.
Thanks for your comments Rusty. I mostly agree with you; in particular with your last paragraph.
As I’ve participated on this website for the last several days I’ve come to realize that there is a sifting process happening within the Church. As I see it, that sifting process will continue to happen regardless of what I or anyone does or says. I see dialogue as simply a lubricant for that sifting process.
I really have no need to convince anyone one way or the other. I just want to see healthy dialogue taking place. Of course I’m going to argue for my perspective, and I will defend my perspective sometimes vigorously when I feel that I and people like me are being unfairly judged by people who have chosen to remain in the Church. If there is any convincing that I’m compelled to do it is to help Mormons see that the majority of those who leave the Church are still honorable, moral, happy people. Mormons do not have a monopoly on that.
In fact, I find it ironic — understandable, but ironic — when people defend behaviors that by normal, real-world standards are dishonest, then in the same breath say that the Mormon Church is the best thing out there for teaching people how to be moral people.
John,
I think ME and my frustration comes from the fact that the same “tired debates” are really never adequately addressed by mormon church leaders. We are dismissed as “anti-mormons” or “sinners.” John, I know you don’t do this but many others, especially in leadership, do engage in this kind of rhetoric. It cause a great deal of mistrust and animosity and leads people like me to conclude that these people (in leadership) cannot trusted or believed in anything. I just wish that instead of the ad hominens, leaders can engage in an open and HONEST debate about what the church’s beliefs really are. Does this make any sense?
Wes
I respect the apologists’ positions. I used to be one. I also empathize with them. The way I empathize with opposing counsel when they have a weak case but a client who won’t settle. That’s a joke, btw. A little levity sometimes cools the temperature in the room, no?
Incidentally, just for the record (so I am not lumped in with the conspiracy theorists), I do not view the Brethren as engaged in some massive conspiracy to cover up church history or to keep the masses in the dark. I do think that they make some conscious (and other unconscious) decisions to accentuate themes and notions that they think will promote faith, foster unity, and encourage obedience to priesthood authority. And they strive to eliminate from the curriculum and church-sponsored media anything that they think might engender doubt, sow seeds of heresy, or contribute to a decline in respect for their authority.
In acting in this way, they are working toward a certain end (more members who are more obedient). In seeking that end, sometimes the means involves downplaying, ignoring, or denying truths not helpful to achieving their goal. They believe in the fundamental truths and they believe in the goodness of their goal. This makes them view with suspicion any facts not in harmony with their overall belief system and the goal they are pursuing.
Bringing it all back to Professor Bushman, I think he does the same thing in Rough Stone Rolling, to a lesser extent. That’s why I would characterize his work as apologetic. The difference between his version of history and the correlated version is one of degree, not kind.
john, i hear ya loud and clear. i do. but you knew that.
i guess i am being too hasty and a bit cavalier. what bushman has said in the interview and what he published is most spectacular – FROM A PATRIARCH, STAKE PRESIDENT, GENERAL AUTHORITY, OR APOLOGIST. if the same thing came from the church, officially, we would jumping for joy. all of us. not because it would be full disclosure, but rather, because it would be progress toward such. it is a bit murky to take his same position as a historian, imo.
did he disqualify critics? john, you are joking right? i really think you must be laughing as you typed that? have you read the preface of his book?
regardless of what he may have said to this audience, i will say, YES, in answer to your question.
dont make me start googling again…….or asking jeeves….. or whatever that seattle company offers.
ME,
I meant in the podcast.
john,
gotchya. gotchya. of course you are right.
whew. good thing i came back and found your response. i was googling and found some stuff about bushman, written by me. scary. and i wasnt very nice – shocker. and it was on this really crazy site – http://www.mormonstories.org.
i need some new hobbies.
Stay away from that site, whatever you do.
And come back for omletes again soon!!!!
In fact, I find it ironic — understandable, but ironic — when people defend behaviors that by normal, real-world standards are dishonest, then in the same breath say that the Mormon Church is the best thing out there for teaching people how to be moral people.
Jeff, show me the source of your morality and I’ll show you the flaws of those who delivered its message.
Actually, I’m not interested in showing you their flaws. I’m glad that you’ve discovered how to be a good person and I hope we can both continue to strive to do so for the rest of our lives.
The biggest eye-opener to me after leaving the Church, and admittedly going through a period of anger where I made some mistakes, is to realize that I don’t need someone to tell me how to live an ethical, moral, virtuous life. I can simply decide to do it. What motivates me to do it if I’ve put magical thinking behind me? I guess it can be summed up as this:
Because it is the right thing to do! Not because some overbearing God is going to punish me if I don’t.
Who would you rather have as your next door neighbor?
- Someone who’s morality was based on a set of arbitrary rules that he bought from some “snake-oil salesman”?
- Or someone who’s morality was based on what is truly the right thing to do?
I view Joseph Smith as a true prophet “who’s morality was based on what is truly the right thing to do”–morality based on thousands of years of human experience, which is evidenced in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. So, thank you for respecting my view point per John’s polite reminder.
However, I hope you weren’t insinuating that you (or anyone else for that matter) are “some ‘snake-oil salesman’” or someone who would follow “arbitrary rules” sold by such a person. That would not be in keeping with the spirit of John’s rules here, so I’ll assume it was purely hypothetical.
Jeff (#18),
I would say that the difference between the snake-oil salesperson and religion is pretty clear. The people who buy the bogus medicine expect something that will make them demonstrably better in the now. There is no claim to a deferred, invisible benefit that many people have traditionally accepted for thousands of years. As illogical as it may be, I think tradition plays a huge role in why we treat religion differently from other social, political, and economic phenomena. Should that remain the case? I guess that is where the argument should focus.
The danger in some religious movements is not the basic set of morals they accept, but the fact that they allow for the possibility that the abrogation of traditional morals may occur and that when it does it will be justified on religious grounds.
Trevor: I agree with all of that, in particular your last statement. But let me start from the top.
Yes, I agree that there is a clear difference between religion and a snake oil salesman. But let me describe it as this: With one you find out you’ve been duped within minutes to maybe a few days. With religion you might live your entire life and never find that you’ve been duped. From where I sit that says that relgion is far worse than a snake-oil salesman.
Trevor: Your comments reminds me of a quote that goes something like this:
“Without religion, good people will still do good things, and evil people will still do evil thinks, but it takes religion to make good people to do evil things.”
I can dig up the source if anyone wants me to.
Jeff, you’re making my exact point. You have flaws yet you somehow can determine what the right thing to do is.
And I think you mischaracterize the way I (and most of the Mormons I know) understand the Gospel. I don’t make my decisions because God is going to punish me if I don’t comply. I make my decisions because I believe that the sum of those decisions change me into a better person. It’s not God that’s overbearing, it’s the objective of becoming a better person that’s overbearing.
By the way, I’m not very clear on how everyone is supposed to just “know” what the right thing to do is. Can you please further explicate this?
Rusty, I’m smiling becaue I think you’ve answered your own question without realizing it and have unknowingly made my point too:
Here’s your question: “how everyone is supposed to just “know” what the right thing to do is.”
Here’s your answer: “I make my decisions because I believe that the sum of those decisions change me into a better person.”
See??? You don’t need a relgion to tell you that. You already know!
Rusty: Another point I want to make. When you leave behind religion your perspective changes so much that your focus is less on yourself and more on the people around you and on your community and on the world in general. Religion inclines people toward having a more selfish perspective; it’s all about earning the right to get into ‘heaven’ (I’ll use the generic term). When you set that aside you’re focus changes to, how can I make this a better place for me, and my children (who have to live in it when I’m gone) and for others in the world who might not be as fortunate as me. I’m sure that it must come off as condescending when I try to explain it—as if I’m some authority—I’m not. I can only explain what it’s been like for me. I’m not perfect but their’s a great freedom that comes with realizing that I don’t have to be. I don’t have to be anything or do anything, but for some reason, now I just want to.
Jeff,
Let me clarify: I make my decisions (to follow the commandments/gospel/prophets/etc.) because I believe that the sum of those decisions change me into a better person.
I’m sincerely glad that since leaving religion you have become a more selfless person. Truly, I am. However, it is a fallacy to suggest that religion inclines people toward having a more selfish perspective. In fact, my understanding of the Gospel is that it is ALL about other people and as a result I see myself as growing less and less selfish as I grow in living the commandments/Gospel.
But you see, it doesn’t matter. You are going to think your view is best, I’m going to think my view is best and we’re not likely to convince each other of the other’s view. But that’s fine. I’m happy that you’re becoming less selfish, that you are doing what’s right and that you’re making the world a better place to live. I’m working on the same goal.
Jeff, your point in #47 is exactly how I feel. Once I gave up on the idea of organized religion being “true”, I felt that my biggest concerns shifted away from myself and more towards my children and the future of our civilization in general. I became more aware of environmental issues and more “big picture” concerns. I directly attribute that to not having to worry about my own salvation or what God might think of me, freeing my mind to think about what really matters. Truly, giving up the idea that I can do anything to earn a place in heaven has opened my mind to what I can and should do here on earth while I am alive.
Rusty, your motivation is still selfish, “…because I believe that the sum of those decisions change me into a better person.” You are still focusing on what religion will do for you. All that service to others is still a means of developing yourself. Why can’t it be to just help out someone else? No reward expected, whether that reward is your development or something more tangible?
Domokun, thank you thank for your thoughts!!
I’ve gotta figure out a way to handle comments better. I have an idea. Am shutting them down for now, but hope to emerge w/ a better idea soon.