The Six Million Dollar Man

[_Ray A]

Gad, I'm not sure if you've see Dave's Inqury on this subject (April 2006). He believes the Church is moving to postmodernism.

[_Ray A]

Bushman has similar leanings. How could he not? The only way he could possibly be upfront about Mormon history is by moving the commonly accepted goalposts. He's the guy who's gotta turn moles into beauty marks. What other option is there that could be worth heavily funding?

Bushman has a blog at the Washington Post, along with Kathleen Flake and Mike Otterson. Initially I felt this was a great idea, primarily because of their backgrounds, but not because I suspected any agenda. I thought we were going to see some straight talking, finally. To my surprise, I commented on Otterson's blog, and my post was not published because, I assume, it was somewhat critical, even though the Post encouraged criticism of their bloggers. "We welcome it", was more or less the encouragement. Although there are numerous criticisms on their blogs, most are of the usual trivial variety, and maybe I hit a nerve by mentioning that I knew Otterson when he was a stake president in Sydney. I'm only speculating. Maybe he didn't allow the post to go on himself. And I mentioned that they (the bloggers) should cover some really controversial stuff, and not sound like it was General Conference, and their posts were very tame, never really touching on anything controversial. (Seems in a way to support what you're saying.)

When I posted on LDSNet. (from where I was unofficially banned, long story), I encouraged posters there to follow and support these bloggers, thinking they'd get a real education on Mormon history, something like you might see in Bushman's books. This wasn't the case. In that post on LDSNet. I wrote a bit about the backgrounds of Bushman, et. al., but when I returned after the banning I noticed it was significantly shorter. I believe it was edited, specifically the more "controversial" parts. The "meat" if you like.

About the "ban". One of my naïve intentions was to proceed to a deeper dialogue with members, that is, to become more aware of and discuss problems in LDS history, but to do so as a "friend". When I realised that this was the furthest thing from the Admin's wishes, and I was essentially "tainting" the innocent with "meat", I asked for my account to be deleted. I told the Admin that I would "no longer spoil the party". I'm not going to stick around to offend them. When my account was deleted, a notice came up on my screen, "You have been banned". No reason was given. Length of the ban: Forever. (Note: after some protesting in other places I'm once again able to view LDSNet., but frankly it's a very boring place anyway.) I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the "banned" notice (still attached to my name) was a way of alerting posters to my "status".

I had a similar experience on By Common Consent, where I was officially banned. My take on all this: LDSNet doesn't like "liberal" views. BCC likes liberal views, but only, apparently, from insiders who hold the "correct" liberal views. I felt I was intruding on another "party", this one filled with liberals who will "steer the Church in the right direction", perhaps the one you suggest. And that's why I found your post very interesting. It does seem to support the notion that there's double-speak going on. The "Mormon Inteligentsia" (including those who read Bushman's books) know about all this, but they are ever careful what they say in public, or on blogs where the "uninitiated" frequent.

Of course I could be wrong about all of this.

[_beastie]

This has been a very interesting thread. I'm not sure what's going on, personally - but aside from the dramatic phrasing, I think that Gad is correct in that some sort of change in regards to apologia may be taking place. I have long noted the odd marriage of post-modernism and LDS apologia, as well.

Gad, you really summed up my experience with LDS apologists as well with this:

For years, I argued against some of the MAD folks who think that Mormons are intellectually trendy because they don't believe in "truth" wheras critics are no better than creationists and religious fundamentalists because they do believe in "truth".

It's just so strange to see people defending the church that claims to be The One True Church, with rights to make authoritative statements about God and the nature of the world, turning around and claiming that people who actually took those claims seriously in terms of "truth" were religious fundamentalists, black/white thinkers. Utterly bizarre.

[_Trevor]

I deny it because it implicates me, people I know, and enterprises in which I'm involved in ways that I regard as both negative and wholly false.

And your denial has very limited value, if all it consists of is essentially a nuh-uh. You probably lend more to it by bothering it answer it at all. My guess is that most people would not bother to ask you your position on the Flat Earth Society, and you have to wonder about the few who would bother.

[_Trevor]

Trevor I believe mentioned that there was some meeting where the Mormons got to interact with important scholars and this was a landmark for them, but then things started going south when the apologists talked evidence.

That is not what I said. I did not write that "things started going south when the apologists talked evidence." What was happening, as I have it from my friend Don, is that certain apologists and Book of Mormon scholars were not comfortable with the fact that other participants do not treat the Book of Mormon as ancient, but as a piece of 19th-century literature written by Joseph Smith. As happened in the Yale conference, the threats were to pull out, and to quite allowing the Roundtable to use BYU facilities, etc. The Roundtable no longer meets at BYU, If I recall correctly.

I may have to contact Don and ask him to refresh my memory.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the correction, Trevor.

[_The Dude]

Obama's popularity says something for the contemporary American psyche, and a Muslim to boot.

What does "Muslim" have to do with anything? Obama presents himself as a believer in Jesus Christ.

[_Ray A]

Obama's popularity says something for the contemporary American psyche, and a Muslim to boot.

What does "Muslim" have to do with anything? Obama presents himself as a believer in Jesus Christ.

Part of the "political process". He has a varied religious background, with strong Muslim influence.

[_Dr. Shades]

There was this "Yale conference" and those little summaries of the talks. I wish Dr. Shades had been there to take notes.

Wow, thank you for the compliment!

(I'd love to put it into my signature line, but that'd be a little too narcissistic.)

[_The Dude]

I think Gadianton and Ray have highlighted some important trends, but let me add my skepticism regarding the notion that there is an organized plot behind the rise of Bushman, et al., as the new apologists. What's essentially going on here is another natural metamorphosis of Mormonism as it slowly enters the watered-down mainstream. An invisible hand is at work, but not the invisible hand of a conspiracy; more like the invisible hand that guides a free economy of ideas. Or the invisible hand that makes water flow downhill.

There was a poll out today about the sensibilities of religious Americans, and it turns out that most evangelicals are open to the idea that other religions can also lead to salvation and eternal life. (!!) Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were noted as exceptions, in that most LDS and JWs still think their religion is the "one and only" but this just means they are behind in their thinking. They haven't seen the light of Bushman and his ilk, but LDS leaders are dropping hints towards that eventuality. Murky postmodernism isn't part of anyones secret agenda, but it is, I think, the principal course of future LDS. And I think that once the murk settles out of the stream, we will find that Mormons have quit talking about historicity of their peculiar scriptures-- hopefully this will happen in my lifetime.