The Dude wrote: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.
I don't think there's a
conspiracy, either. Agenda, yes. But one might ask, who doesn't have an agenda? Witness the reactions to Claudia Bushman's comments about women in the Church. Some felt she had gone apostate. I'd say her agenda was to try to get some uptight Mormon males to drop their stereotypical views of women, views lingering from the 1950s. Maybe Richard Bushman is playing this "game" both ways? He wants mainstream America to accept Mormons, and I noted his grave concern about attacks on Mormons (and I agree with him on this), but at the same time to reserve his right to believe in Mormonism as he pleases, without imposing his beliefs on others. In other words, "we are really normal, even if we believe in what you consider abnormal, or, supernormal".
Consider some more of his commentary:
There are certain traditions that just persist forever. One is that he was a "colorful fraud," and even a "dangerous fraud," which was a stereotype that was locked on him almost immediately. He was classed with Muhammad as a man who thought he spoke for God and therefore wished to impose his will by force on people around him, and he was frequently compared to Muhammad in his own lifetime. That remains.
I do think there is a growing willingness to respect Joseph Smith because of the success of the Mormon Church. With so many sensible, likeable people who are Mormons and who believe in him, it's not as easy to dismiss him as it was in the 19th century. So there's a look-and-see attitude: Hard to believe he did the things he claimed to do--seeing an angel and translating--and still, here are the consequences, the Mormon people. So there's a suspension of disbelief among some observers.[emphasis added]
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/181/story_18153_1.htmlBut the thing that has enabled this "suspension of disbelief" amounts to the rejection of some of the things Joseph Smith taught, like Celestial polygamy, and "I don't know that we teach that" watering down. This is the other clarification I asked Mike Otterson for - do you still believe in polygamy, even "in principle". No reply. Not even the First Presidency will admit to, or clarify this. What it amounts to is a slowly discarding theology with the basics intact - primarily the spiritual witness. We KNOW it's true, and that's the most important thing. Don't apply logic, because logic doesn't work in these situations. Like Quinn, Bushman is prepared to lay it all on the table, but in the end still bear fervent testimony. And this is something often overlooked in Quinn. He's a true believer, and he believes that God led him to write what he did, even if he can no longer associate with "officialdom". So like it or not, the "God element" is present, in Quinn and Bushman, and Quinn still believes, as far as I'm aware, that the Book of Mormon is "literal history", and Joseph Smith was a "prophet like Moses". I think, though I could be wrong here, that this is what motivates all apologists. The only people who can make 2+2=5 are the believers. How literally Bushman takes the Book of Mormon, I don't know, but I'd be keen to find out. Does a Professor of American History really believe that Jesus appeared in Mesoamerica? Would he dare ever say that in a doctoral thesis? No, because his belief is "personal", even if totally irrational to most. So no, I don't think there's a "conspiracy", but there is an agenda, and the agenda is to persuade the world that Mormons are really "normal", even if they believe in eccentric things.
The Dude wrote: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.
I don't think they're going to stop talking about historicity, not for the near future anyway, but I also think that if historicity is the "armour" with which they protect their spiritual beliefs, all I can say is, if you have to depend on the historicity of a book to maintain your belief in God, then your belief in God is extremely fragile.