Thanks for the link.
I've pulled up several of the articles and begun to read them. I haven't completely finished
Bushman's article yet, but I have a particular criticism of it so far.
He seems to be setting up an elaborate strawman. Let me illustrate:
You might think that Mormons would be most cautious about science. It is really the scientific point of view that challenges all revelatory religions these days. Science insists on material evidence of truth. Religion rarely provides any. My own season of doubt grew out of my encounters with logical positivism in its heyday. Asked how he would reply when God confronted him after death with his failure to believe, Bertrand Russell is reputed to have answered: Not enough evidence. That is science’s question for religion. Where’s the evidence?
The fact that Mormonism's teachings and claims cannot be substantiated by evidence is really just a part of the problem. And, not coincidentally, it's the easier of the parts with which a believer can easily reconcile themself. All one has to do is claim that not everything is known yet, cite "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", have faith, and decide to keep believing, with confidence that the evidence will someday be there.
The thornier problem, I believe, is that science has brought forth evidence that contradicts the worldview set up by Mormon scriptures, doctrine, and teachings.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but contradictory evidence is evidence that one got it wrong."
Hundreds of years ago, the claims of those who we might look at as the early, primitive scientists, were hardly reliable. There was a lot of hand-waving, grasping around in the dark, and assumptions that were just plain ill-informed and wrong. Science has been steadily improving itself in the centuries since then, and by now, while not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, the capabilities of science to make reliable and trustworthy claims based on the available evidence have skyrocketed, and improved radically. There is a trend here, one of progress, improvement, and increasing reliability.
In the Mormon church, exactly the opposite has been experienced. At its founding, the leader, Joseph Smith, was so sure of himself, and pronounced a great deal upon a great number of topics. Scriptures that came forth through Joseph Smith contained lots of teachings about a variety of subjects. Early leaders and successors of Joseph Smith were likewise very specific, and very willing to pronounce teachings and doctrines on a wide variety of subjects. In the time since, as science has grown its body of knowledge, and improved its methods, there has been a corresponding retreat within Mormonism of its leaders' propensities to teach and pronounce on various subjects, and even outright retreat (within the apologists' circles, if not yet within the official teachings of the church) from many of the early teachings and claims.
So, we have an ascending science, showing a marked trend toward greater reliability, greater precision, and a wider body of knowledge. At the same time we have religious claims and teachings within Mormonism on the retreat, with an outright cessation of willingness to make claims, and relentless retreat from the teachings and claims of former leaders.
I do not believe this correlation is accidental.
Again, it is not merely the absence of scientific corroboration for Mormon beliefs that threatens Mormonism. It is the outright retreat from previously-held and previously-taught matters in the face of contradictory evidence from science, that most threatens the church.
And though the apologetic practice of disclaiming former teachings as fallible human opinion, "adjusting one's paradigm", redefining the teachings from historical accounts to metaphorical parables, and the like, may seem to rescue the testimonies of some members today, it does so at the cost of removing many of the kinds of things that bring and bind members together. These include a sense of common cause against the outside world, "enemies" that are to be rallied against, a sense of uniqueness and "specialness" in possessing secret knowledge that everyone else doesn't have, and belief that the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are being lead and taught, in person, by the Creator of the Universe.
Mormon apologetics are inevitably eroding the foundation of Mormonism, the substance of Mormonism, and the differentiating, unique beliefs of Mormonism. They are thus, IMHO, diluting the future ability of the church to captivate and hold together the church.
And this is all in response to the growing contradiction of historical Mormon teachings and beliefs by science.
I'm only halfway done with Bushman's article. I took a break to go make myself some food, and decided to post this after thinking about what I'd read so far while up in the kitchen. I'll finish reading his article now and see if anything changes my opinion as stated so far in this post. I'll post again if I think it does.