Bushman admits the Dominant LDS narrative is not true

[_Aristotle Smith]

What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts. If we don’t we will weaken our position. Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material. Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion. The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians. We are all having to reconstruct. In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story. I still believe in gold plates. I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration. I think he was sincere in saying he saw God. The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

Bushman mockingly accused Boyd K. Packer of protecting grandmas in Sanpete County at the expense of their grandkids. Ironically, Bushman only protects the grandkids provided they stop their critical thinking on the matter right where Bushman does. I give Bushman credit for engaging the "newer" (how can something 50+ years old be new?) evidence more than did Packer, but they both erect arbitrary stopping points.

Bushman's stopping points are alluded to in the quote. The stopping point should/must leave physical gold plates, some sort of undefined inspiration for the Book of Mormon, and a divine interest in human kind after the close of the New Testament. The problems for Bushman are fairly obvious. There is absolutely zero evidence for the gold plates and they are most plausibly seen as a continuation of Joseph's gold digging adventures. The inspired Book of Mormon is riddled with anachronisms, changing theology, and was never actually quoted by its translator. As for God taking an interest in human kind in modern times, I guess that interest is in large part promoting alpha male behavior, taking teenage brides, and encouraging polygamy. No thanks.

Since there is little support for even Bushman's minimalist Mormon origins story, why does he stop where he stops? Presumably, because that's where he is comfortable stopping. Why not give Packer the same leeway to stop where he felt comfortable? If one is going to stop at an arbitrary point does it really matter where that arbitrary point is?

[_Rosebud]

What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts. If we don’t we will weaken our position. Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material. Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion. The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians. We are all having to reconstruct. In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story. I still believe in gold plates. I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration. I think he was sincere in saying he saw God. The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

Bushman mockingly accused Boyd K. Packer of protecting grandmas in Sanpete County at the expense of their grandkids. Ironically, Bushman only protects the grandkids provided they stop their critical thinking on the matter right where Bushman does. I give Bushman credit for engaging the "newer" (how can something 50+ years old be new?) evidence more than did Packer, but they both erect arbitrary stopping points.

Bushman's stopping points are alluded to in the quote. The stopping point should/must leave physical gold plates, some sort of undefined inspiration for the Book of Mormon, and a divine interest in human kind after the close of the New Testament. The problems for Bushman are fairly obvious. There is absolutely zero evidence for the gold plates and they are most plausibly seen as a continuation of Joseph's gold digging adventures. The inspired Book of Mormon is riddled with anachronisms, changing theology, and was never actually quoted by its translator. As for God taking an interest in human kind in modern times, I guess that interest is in large part promoting alpha male behavior, taking teenage brides, and encouraging polygamy. No thanks.

Since there is little support for even Bushman's minimalist Mormon origins story, why does he stop where he stops? Presumably, because that's where he is comfortable stopping. Why not give Packer the same leeway to stop where he felt comfortable? If one is going to stop at an arbitrary point does it really matter where that arbitrary point is?

The incentive for belief is social status and power. Each Mormon who does not have the courage to sacrifice social status and power will stop at the place at which he or she perceives she can stop and maintain that social status and power. Going farther than that place requires self-awareness and the courage to lose. Bushman has more to lose than others and therefore requires more courage to take the plunge.

That said, having his social status and power is not much of a hardship and he may not have developed much courage. So, this is what we get from him....

[_sock puppet]

This is a stellar thread.

[_Gadianton]

Bushman's stopping points are alluded to in the quote.

Right.

The whole thing is a bunch of double talk. He says at the end that he still believes the same thing as he did as a missionary. What a waste of scholarly life if that's the case. Who believes the same crap they did at 19? Now he toes the line: "The scenery has changed but the fundamental story remains the same." In other words, there has been no reconstruction worthy of mention. Not a lot of thrill and risk of discovery if intent on fundamentals remaining totally fixed.

In fairness, it may be that he's really progressive and needs to cover his ass by saying some of this stuff.

[_RockSlider]

In fairness, it may be that he's really progressive and needs to cover his ass by saying some of this stuff.

obvious leak of video from a very private setting ... of course he is covering his ass


What you have here is another example of the "Pedersen Letter" and his telling me one night. "That Letter has been my hell".

Welcome to hell Bushman.

[_Maksutov]

What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts. If we don’t we will weaken our position. Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material. Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion. The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians. We are all having to reconstruct. In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story. I still believe in gold plates. I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration. I think he was sincere in saying he saw God. The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

Bushman mockingly accused Boyd K. Packer of protecting grandmas in Sanpete County at the expense of their grandkids. Ironically, Bushman only protects the grandkids provided they stop their critical thinking on the matter right where Bushman does. I give Bushman credit for engaging the "newer" (how can something 50+ years old be new?) evidence more than did Packer, but they both erect arbitrary stopping points.

Bushman's stopping points are alluded to in the quote. The stopping point should/must leave physical gold plates, some sort of undefined inspiration for the Book of Mormon, and a divine interest in human kind after the close of the New Testament. The problems for Bushman are fairly obvious. There is absolutely zero evidence for the gold plates and they are most plausibly seen as a continuation of Joseph's gold digging adventures. The inspired Book of Mormon is riddled with anachronisms, changing theology, and was never actually quoted by its translator. As for God taking an interest in human kind in modern times, I guess that interest is in large part promoting alpha male behavior, taking teenage brides, and encouraging polygamy. No thanks.

Since there is little support for even Bushman's minimalist Mormon origins story, why does he stop where he stops? Presumably, because that's where he is comfortable stopping. Why not give Packer the same leeway to stop where he felt comfortable? If one is going to stop at an arbitrary point does it really matter where that arbitrary point is?

Excellent.

[Guest]

Bushman's stopping points are alluded to in the quote. The stopping point should/must leave physical gold plates, some sort of undefined inspiration for the Book of Mormon, and a divine interest in human kind after the close of the New Testament. The problems for Bushman are fairly obvious. There is absolutely zero evidence for the gold plates and they are most plausibly seen as a continuation of Joseph's gold digging adventures. The inspired Book of Mormon is riddled with anachronisms, changing theology, and was never actually quoted by its translator. As for God taking an interest in human kind in modern times, I guess that interest is in large part promoting alpha male behavior, taking teenage brides, and encouraging polygamy. No thanks.

The existence of the gold plates is a big sticking point for Bushman, Givens, and others in their circle. There's this idea that they have of the plates being an analog of the resurrection, and, in some sense, interwoven with the Book of Mormon's witness to the resurrection. The value of that witness is dependent upon the book being actually ancient, and the plates' raising from the dust is only a solid analog for Christ's resurrection if they are real ancient plates. Of course, the thinking on this is entirely circular. As I argued at Sunstone last summer, the story of the Book of Mormon's recovery belongs to a very old narrative pattern of the discovery of magical texts and forgeries. Its similarity to these stories is as or more significant than its testament of the resurrection.

What it suggests is that Joseph Smith had appropriated such ancient stories and crafted the hoax of the gold plates from them. Now, if you are a good Mason, you can accept the value of the hoax that points to important symbolic truths. But the problem with Mormons is that they forgot the lessons of Freemasonry and took the word ancient in a very particular and literal sense. So, Joseph Smith broadcasts a new Masonic myth that recalls the raising of Hiram Abiff and Enoch's gold plate bearing the name of God, buried beneath the mount of the Temple in Jerusalem in a subterranean temple vault, as a kind of dog whistle to other people who are savvy of those things. Many people who are not savvy of those things take them literally and cling to them as actual history.

Of course, the core problem with taking the discovery of the gold plates literally is that we have to take the word of a con artist on the very topic he was practiced at lying about as truth in order to buy into it. Joseph Smith was involved in a con. He was making up crap about buried treasure in order to get money as a treasure seer and then made up another story about a different kind of buried treasure as his lead up to starting a church. Now, I can understand a critical thinker deciding that the value of the myth, the good lessons it teaches, and the good community it creates are worth supporting. But it seems to me that critical thought must lead to the conclusion that Smith made the plates up. It does not matter that a handful of semi-respectable bumpkins placed their John Hancock on a statement Smith wrote for them. LOL.

[_DrW]

Bushman's stopping points are alluded to in the quote. The stopping point should/must leave physical gold plates, some sort of undefined inspiration for the Book of Mormon, and a divine interest in human kind after the close of the New Testament. The problems for Bushman are fairly obvious. There is absolutely zero evidence for the gold plates and they are most plausibly seen as a continuation of Joseph's gold digging adventures. The inspired Book of Mormon is riddled with anachronisms, changing theology, and was never actually quoted by its translator. As for God taking an interest in human kind in modern times, I guess that interest is in large part promoting alpha male behavior, taking teenage brides, and encouraging polygamy. No thanks.

The existence of the gold plates is a big sticking point for Bushman, Givens, and others in their circle. There's this idea that they have of the plates being an analog of the resurrection, and, in some sense, interwoven with the Book of Mormon's witness to the resurrection. The value of that witness is dependent upon the book being actually ancient, and the plates' raising from the dust is only a solid analog for Christ's resurrection if they are real ancient plates. Of course, the thinking on this is entirely circular. As I argued at Sunstone last summer, the story of the Book of Mormon's recovery belongs to a very old narrative pattern of the discovery of magical texts and forgeries. Its similarity to these stories is as or more significant than its testament of the resurrection.

What it suggests is that Joseph Smith had appropriated such ancient stories and crafted the hoax of the gold plates from them. Now, if you are a good Mason, you can accept the value of the hoax that points to important symbolic truths. But the problem with Mormons is that they forgot the lessons of Freemasonry and took the word ancient in a very particular and literal sense. So, Joseph Smith broadcasts a new Masonic myth that recalls the raising of Hiram Abiff and Enoch's gold plate bearing the name of God, buried beneath the mount of the Temple in Jerusalem in a subterranean temple vault, as a kind of dog whistle to other people who are savvy of those things. Many people who are not savvy of those things take them literally and cling to them as actual history.

Of course, the core problem with taking the discovery of the gold plates literally is that we have to take the word of a con artist on the very topic he was practiced at lying about as truth in order to buy into it. Joseph Smith was involved in a con. He was making up crap about buried treasure in order to get money as a treasure seer and then made up another story about a different kind of buried treasure as his lead up to starting a church. Now, I can understand a critical thinker deciding that the value of the myth, the good lessons it teaches, and the good community it creates is worth supporting. But it seems to me that critical thought must lead to the conclusion that Smith made the plates up. It does not matter that a handful of semi-respectable bumpkins placed their John Hancock on a statement Smith wrote for them. LOL.

Also excellent.

[_Chap]

Of course, the core problem with taking the discovery of the gold plates literally is that we have to take the word of a con artist on the very topic he was practiced at lying about as truth in order to buy into it. Joseph Smith was involved in a con. He was making up crap about buried treasure in order to get money as a treasure seer and then made up another story about a different kind of buried treasure as his lead up to starting a church.

The CoJCoLDS has tacitly acknowledged this huge problem by trying to spin Joseph Smith's now undeniable history of paid treasure-seeking with magic stones into a divinely ordained preparation for his later prophetic mission.

Somehow I think they will lose more young people that way than they will gain that way. For the grandmothers I do not presume to speak.

[Guest]

Of course, the core problem with taking the discovery of the gold plates literally is that we have to take the word of a con artist on the very topic he was practiced at lying about as truth in order to buy into it. Joseph Smith was involved in a con. He was making up crap about buried treasure in order to get money as a treasure seer and then made up another story about a different kind of buried treasure as his lead up to starting a church.

The CoJCoLDS has tacitly acknowledged this huge problem by trying to spin Joseph Smith's now undeniable history of paid treasure-seeking with magic stones into a divinely ordained preparation for his later prophetic mission.

https://www.LDS.org/topics/book-of-morm ... n?lang=eng

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.

...

Some people have balked at this claim of physical instruments used in the divine translation process, but such aids to facilitate the communication of God’s power and inspiration are consistent with accounts in scripture. In addition to the Urim and Thummim, the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva to heal the eyes of a blind man.

Somehow I think they will lose more young people that way than they will gain that way. For the grandmothers I do not presume to speak.