Schryver on Bushman's RSR

[_harmony]

Are you guys sure this Schryver character is a real person? If he's not some ex-Mormon's sockpuppet he's the single stupidest apologist there is.

We have pictures and testimonials that he exists. However, I think your description should be written in stone and framed.

[Guest]

How brainless do these people have to be? The one guy who is trying to soften the blow of who Joseph Smith really was and to help people maintain faith is getting attacked by his own side. I sort of hope they do just because it's such a phenomenally stupid move but I hear Bushman is a good man and noone deserves that kind of s***.

Are you guys sure this Schryver character is a real person? If he's not some ex-Mormon's sockpuppet he's the single stupidest apologist there is.

Bushman is a good man and I know that Kish in particular is vehemently opposed to this kind of thing, but I have to admit that part of me would love to see a classic FARMS-style "hit piece" on Bushman and RSR only for the fallout it would cause. The "Dehlin debacle" would pale in comparison.

[_Bob Loblaw]

We have pictures and testimonials that he exists. However, I think your description should be written in stone and framed.

As I get older I have less patience for stupid people. This guy takes the cake.

[_Stormy Waters]

When pressed for details he gave this response.

Also, I should make perfectly clear that I regard most, even the majority, of Bushman's interpretations as valid and even insightful at times. I only have a problem with a few of them, and they tend to concern his forays into Brodieesque/Vogelesque historiography.

I don't believe Bushman understands Joseph Smith very well in many significant respects.

Worse yet, I believe Bushman fails abysmally in many significant respects to understand Joseph Smith's enemies; their motivations; their methods; and especially the ways their propaganda has filtered down through the almost two centuries since the First Vision, and continues to manipulate public (and historical) perspectives of Joseph Smith to the present day. In that respect, it's not so much the specific instances where Bushman cedes to critics a particular point, but that he cedes points that need not and should not be surrendered for the simple reason that the "evidence" is part of the corpus of "enemy propaganda" that has been used to produce a caricature of Joseph Smith since the beginning of his prophetic ministry.

Bushman also attests a subtle aversion and prejudice against plural marriage, and is therefore far too receptive to controversial contemporary historical narratives that are hostile to Joseph Smith specifically on account of their authors' opposition to the implementation of plural marriage as a feature of the restoration.

So basically any negative evidence should be ignored.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Worse yet, I believe Bushman fails abysmally in many significant respects to understand Joseph Smith's enemies; their motivations; their methods; and especially the ways their propaganda has filtered down through the almost two centuries since the First Vision, and continues to manipulate public (and historical) perspectives of Joseph Smith to the present day. In that respect, it's not so much the specific instances where Bushman cedes to critics a particular point, but that he cedes points that need not and should not be surrendered for the simple reason that the "evidence" is part of the corpus of "enemy propaganda" that has been used to produce a caricature of Joseph Smith since the beginning of his prophetic ministry.

I just realized something, he thinks he's Joseph Smith! It makes sense now. He's beset by enemies who attack him with propaganda. It's therefore important not to cede anything to the critics even if it is true. Joseph screwed married women? No way! Schryver has long treated women with contempt? Not on your life!

Damn this guy isn't just stupid but has a real personality disorder.

[_Cicero]

When pressed for details he gave this response.

Also, I should make perfectly clear that I regard most, even the majority, of Bushman's interpretations as valid and even insightful at times. I only have a problem with a few of them, and they tend to concern his forays into Brodieesque/Vogelesque historiography.

I don't believe Bushman understands Joseph Smith very well in many significant respects.

Worse yet, I believe Bushman fails abysmally in many significant respects to understand Joseph Smith's enemies; their motivations; their methods; and especially the ways their propaganda has filtered down through the almost two centuries since the First Vision, and continues to manipulate public (and historical) perspectives of Joseph Smith to the present day. In that respect, it's not so much the specific instances where Bushman cedes to critics a particular point, but that he cedes points that need not and should not be surrendered for the simple reason that the "evidence" is part of the corpus of "enemy propaganda" that has been used to produce a caricature of Joseph Smith since the beginning of his prophetic ministry.

Bushman also attests a subtle aversion and prejudice against plural marriage, and is therefore far too receptive to controversial contemporary historical narratives that are hostile to Joseph Smith specifically on account of their authors' opposition to the implementation of plural marriage as a feature of the restoration.

So basically any negative evidence should be ignored.

Or that anyone critical of Joseph Smith has to be clearly identified as an ENEMY and treated accordingly, which results in propaganda not history. There are already several propaganda-style bios of Joseph Smith available at your local Deseret Book. We don't need any more of those.

[_Philo Sofee]

Of course, I am not alone, as you probably know. Although I will not "name names," I could rattle off at least a half dozen very prominent LDS scholars/apologists who concur with my assessment of Bushman and his book. This is not meant as an appeal to authority (otherwise I would have named names), but rather merely to underscore the fact that there is a profound disagreement about these things among those whose knowledge of Mormon history is such that it renders them well-qualified to judge.

An appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority even if you don't name names. All you have to do is insist that persons better, in some sense, than you hold this view.

"Hey watch me make an appeal to authority as I claim I am not doing so. Are ya fooled?"

LOL! Actually Bushman appeals to anyone who is willing to suspend church desired and promoted faith and use a little bit of reasoning in your study. I think Bushman's book absolutely HAS to become the Priesthood lesson manual if interest is going to be maintained form the more intelligent Mormons instead of the pap and mish-mash testimony we are constantly given. The manuals are simply undigestible anymore, it's all pudding instead of a healthy 7 course meal like Joseph Smith promised was coming.

[_Philo Sofee]

How brainless do these people have to be? The one guy who is trying to soften the blow of who Joseph Smith really was and to help people maintain faith is getting attacked by his own side. I sort of hope they do just because it's such a phenomenally stupid move but I hear Bushman is a good man and noone deserves that kind of s***.

Are you guys sure this Schryver character is a real person? If he's not some ex-Mormon's sockpuppet he's the single stupidest apologist there is.

As far as I can tell, I mean truly, we Mormons have been taught and re-taught for so long what the real history is
(the edited version of faith promoting fluff from on high) that we can't actually assess when something really
good comes along, such as Bushman's study! We are brain-dead man. And it just doesn't have to be this way.
Now then, for a conspiracy theory for you all, I think the church likes it this way. The less informed people are,
the easier they are to manage. Individual intelligence and question asking is discouraged. Now I grant, the
church can't (even though it does) directly tell us NOT to ask questions, but it does the very next best thing
to keep everyone on the same level of smarts. The manuals INCLUDE questions that are the guideline.
The teacher asks THOSE questions, and it directs thinking along those lines alone.
Works like Bushman's will always get criticized, because we already know the truth, and for even a fellow
LDS scholar to say anything we don't already know, it rubs us wrong, and we criticize. It's the perfect set
up for failure in the long run. It makes it look like the church hides and changes its actual history
because that, in fact, is exactly what it does. It's no longer possible to defend this.

[_Dr. Shades]

But seriously, there has been a pronounced reluctance among LDS apologists to strongly criticize Bushman and Rough Stone Rolling on account of a certain sense of "loyalty to the team."

Right, just like there has been a pronounced reluctance among LDS apologists to strongly criticize Rodney Meldrum on account of a certain sense of "loyalty to the team."

[_Kishkumen]

Truth is defined by group loyalty, is it? Well, at least William is honest about his epistemology.

I doubt he could be any more explicit about that at this point. I know I have understood this to be the case about Will for a couple of years now. He seems to glory in the fact.