DiscussMormonism.com

There has been some very interesting commentary on Will Schryver's super-long "...He Did Go About Secretly" thread. As readers will recall, Will's point was a kind of "call to action"--a means of discussing ways to root out "fifth columnist" elements in the Church.

Intriguingly, on pg. 19 of the thread, a rather mysterious (yet vaguely familiar) poster named "Anti-NOMunistJackMormon" wrote this about noted LDS scholar Richard Bushman:

I've heard the NOM website called a way station for people who want out of the church but are waiting for various reasons or say they are hiding due to family and carreer issues. Most of the moderators there are athiest or agnostic with very little regard for much or all of Mormonism and don't even want the cultural ties associated with Mormonism.

Some are seeking to reform of core tenants of the church. Many want full disclosure from the church ranging from issues of polygamy and on up to a full appology for Prop 8. Generally speaking it is a theologically left with heavy overtones to secular humanism. It is touted as being a good place for people struggling with testimony issues and the like. It is not in my opinion.

I know there are people here including myself who have or do participate there I'm not trying to shut them down or stop them from making thier points/opinions. I think however the motives and statement of mission is highly misleading. While it has never specifically been said the presumed postion of is a support and scholarly pursuit coming from a Sunstone or Dr. Bushman-like position. While not absolutely untrue it is a far cry from faithful or non-agressive stance against the church or"TBMs".

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/580 ... e__st__360

Though the post is awkwardly worded, my take away here is that this person seems to be saying the Richard Bushman, though "scholarly," is nonetheless "aggressive" towards traditional LDS faith. If this had been the only comment on that matter, it would be easy to shrug it off as just some stereotypical MDD whack-job. But that's not what happened. Instead, Will Schryver turned up to offer the Mopologist Party Line on the issue:

Will Schryver wrote:By and large, I thought Rough Stone Rolling was a satisfactory biography of Joseph Smith. That said, I am of the opinion that, in many cases--and unnecessarily so--Bushman pandered to the critics of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church. Or, if he was not intentionally pandering to the critics, he holds to some views of Joseph Smith that I believe to be manifestly false, and he incorrectly interprets some events in Joseph Smith's history, such that Rough Stone Rolling can definitely be a faith-eroding book in the hands of those whose knowledge and understanding of LDS Church history is deficient in certain respects.

That Rough Stone Rolling is considered by many to be, at this date, the "definitive" biography of Joseph Smith is, in my judgment, more a commentary on the mediocrity of its competitors than it is a valid assessment of the relative quality of the work itself.

Wow! Rough Stone Rolling is a "faith-eroding book"? That's an extremely hostile charge. But the thing of it is, I already basically knew this.

Not long ago, I was told by an "informant" that the Old Guard Mopologists "view Bushman with suspicion." The straw that broke the camel's back, allegedly, was the Gold Plates Seminar that Bushman hosted last year. (Yes: this was the event where a gang of Mopologists--including Louis "Woody" Midgley, Matt Roper, and John Gee--teamed up to verbally assault Mike Reed during a Q&A session.) The Old Guard, per my informant, dislikes Bushman for precisely the reasons outlined by Will Schryver: they think that he capitulates too much to Church critics--that he's too much of a softie. At this seminar, Bushman hosted and served as something of a mentor to people like Mike Reed and Chris Smith, both of whome the Mopologists consider "anti-Mormons." Remember, too, that Bushman was one of the high-profile Church intellectuals to publicly decry the aggressive polemics in the Review. The Old Guard Mopologists are exceptionally petty, and they have very long memories when it comes to this kind of thing.

And thus the war goes on and on and on. I'm reminded of Robert Duvall's memorable speech from Apocalypse Now, where he reflects on the nature of war and violence, and he wraps up his comments by reflecting wistfully, "One of these days this war's gonna end...." The only question is, "When?"

ETA: I just noticed that Seth Payne already posted on this up in the "MADhouse Quotes" thread, but I still think this issue merits its own, separate discussion.

The mopologists have a pathological case of self-importance. Peterson and Schryver are the best examples. But something tells me their days are numbered.

I don't think Will is alone in his perception of RSR. When a brother from our ward saw the book on our coffee table while home teaching a few years ago, he asked my opinion of it. We discussed our impressions of the book and of the issues raised by Bushman for several minutes and then he added, "I wouldn't recommend that book to just anyone, it could raise a lot of doubts for people who have never heard of these issues before."

Interestingly, the church doesn't seem afraid of Bushman or RSR. I first heard of both book and author via the Worlds of Joseph Smith Symposium which was available for viewing at LDS.org and featured on the site's home page.

mercyngrace wrote:I don't think Will is alone in his perception of RSR. When a brother from our ward saw the book on our coffee table while home teaching a few years ago, he asked my opinion of it. We discussed our impressions of the book and of the issues raised by Bushman for several minutes and then he added, "I wouldn't recommend that book to just anyone, it could raise a lot of doubts for people who have never heard of these issues before."

Interestingly, the church doesn't seem afraid of Bushman or RSR. I first heard of both book and author via the Worlds of Joseph Smith Symposium which was available for viewing at LDS.org and featured on the site's home page.

Bushman's book would have had the same effect on me as Palmer's book. It raised my awareness and made me hungry to know everything about the church that was unknowingly force feed to me by my unwitting Mormon parents, family, leaders, teachers, and community(Bountiful Utah)

I did not know Joseph Smith was a polyg nor did I know he cheated on his wife under the guise of the flaming sword death threat.

Additionally, I did not know that papyrus had been rediscovered and was in the hands of the prophet seer and revelator since 1967. Futhermore, I did not know that the translation of it had zero matches to what the power of god had translated.

Finding out that Smith stuck his face to "translate" plates by staring at a glowing rock in a hat was, quite frankly, embarrassing.

Finally uncovering the origins of the temple ceremony was a huge relief. A relief that I did not need to feel ashamed that I did not understand it. Now I did and it was quite clear that Smith was a copy cat.

Word of wisdom; same thing, Smith was a copy cat.

Three degrees of glory? Copy cat.


There are two kinds of active Mormon members. Ones who have a distinct reason to believe in Mormonism and ones who don't. So called apostasy can change this.

I would have left the LDS church as a teen had I read Mormon Enigma or No Man Knows my History, for the same reasons Bushman's would have and why Palmer's book did; it enticed my curiosity. These earlier books were obscure in my world back then.

The problem for LDS Inc now is that the internet is chock full of this stuff and all it takes is curiosity and google.com.

I think Will and Anti-NOMistJackMormon are pointing to the fact that unfiltered history can be subversive and those filtered out facts are unhelpful. Best to go with the collective wisdom of TBMs, were the thinking has already been done.

moksha wrote:I think Will and Anti-NOMistJackMormon are pointing to the fact that unfiltered history can be subversive and those filtered out facts are unhelpful. Best to go with the collective wisdom of TBMs, were the thinking has already been done.

Exactamundo lil penguin.

I am positive it is all hands on deck at LDS Inc on how to prevent the youth from leaving over the next 10-15 years as they leave the confines of home.

Tough road ahead for LDS Inc and the state of Utah.

Polygamy-Porter wrote:I am positive it is all hands on deck at LDS Inc on how to prevent the youth from leaving over the next 10-15 years as they leave the confines of home.

Tough road ahead for LDS Inc and the state of Utah.

The Saturday Warriors are not going to remain faithfull. The youth are pulling out of the church as they become old enough to realize that the world offers so much more than the cult that tells them not to masturbate. The Mormon church is experiencing the loss of a generation and it's only going to get worse! The church is bleeding to death.

Google the truth!



Paul O

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

mercyngrace wrote:I don't think Will is alone in his perception of RSR. When a brother from our ward saw the book on our coffee table while home teaching a few years ago, he asked my opinion of it. We discussed our impressions of the book and of the issues raised by Bushman for several minutes and then he added, "I wouldn't recommend that book to just anyone, it could raise a lot of doubts for people who have never heard of these issues before."

Interestingly, the church doesn't seem afraid of Bushman or RSR. I first heard of both book and author via the Worlds of Joseph Smith Symposium which was available for viewing at LDS.org and featured on the site's home page.

Bushman's book would have had the same effect on me as Palmer's book. It raised my awareness and made me hungry to know everything about the church that was unknowingly force feed to me by my unwitting Mormon parents, family, leaders, teachers, and community(Bountiful Utah)

I did not know Joseph Smith was a polyg nor did I know he cheated on his wife under the guise of the flaming sword death threat.

Additionally, I did not know that papyrus had been rediscovered and was in the hands of the prophet seer and revelator since 1967. Futhermore, I did not know that the translation of it had zero matches to what the power of god had translated.

Finding out that Smith stuck his face to "translate" plates by staring at a glowing rock in a hat was, quite frankly, embarrassing.

Finally uncovering the origins of the temple ceremony was a huge relief. A relief that I did not need to feel ashamed that I did not understand it. Now I did and it was quite clear that Smith was a copy cat.

Word of wisdom; same thing, Smith was a copy cat.

Three degrees of glory? Copy cat.


There are two kinds of active Mormon members. Ones who have a distinct reason to believe in Mormonism and ones who don't. So called apostasy can change this.

I would have left the LDS church as a teen had I read Mormon Enigma or No Man Knows my History, for the same reasons Bushman's would have and why Palmer's book did; it enticed my curiosity. These earlier books were obscure in my world back then.

The problem for LDS Inc now is that the internet is chock full of this stuff and all it takes is curiosity and google.com.

OMG.

I think that Polygamy Porter may be my sock puppet. Or maybe I am his. One of the two.

I could have written this exact post, verbatim.

Four years ago, when I asked to meet with my Bishop to discuss my growing concerns over church history, he confessed that he was completely unfamiliar with the issues, and asked for some time to dig in to it. Some weeks later, at our next meeting, he recommended RSR, while making it clear his father had suggested the book as an antidote to an overdose of LDS history, but he had not read it himself. I suspect that if he had read it, he might have realized that it was confirming most of the disturbing issues I had gleaned from the Tanners and Fawn Brodie.