Bushman admits the Dominant LDS narrative is not true

[_DrW]

It is a problem, and yet it is also, unfortunately for the apologists, entirely consistent with Joseph Smith's later behavior in regards to polygamy. Engage in stupefying degrees of dishonesty? Why, yes! He did. And he always did. Polygamy wasn't a sudden exception in an otherwise upright life. The same character who lied about seeing buried treasure lied about having plates and lied about an angel compelling him to "marry" teenage girls. Once one sees the continuity in the pattern of Smith's behavior, it is impossible to imagine him being honest about finding gold plates, inscribed by Egyptian-writing Hebrews, buried in upstate New York.

This is why Bushman's behavior is immoral.

Bushman stands in a place of power and influence. He is intelligent and can surely see the connections between the dots. He chooses, however, to believe and he maintains his social status and power through that belief. At the same time, his belief communicates to women, teenage girls and others that Joseph Smith's sexual and marital behaviors were appropriate. Women and teenage girls must therefore accept that God sometimes wants them to be victims in order to forward His work on earth. Women who believe this will place themselves in positions of victimhood for what they believe to be a higher cause because just like Bushman they maintain belief (even in polygamy) in order to maintain social status.

Simply put: Bushman's decision to serve himself through his belief influences others' decisions to serve themselves through their beliefs.

But here's the key difference: Bushman has more social status than those he is influencing. He is a man at the top and he wins the gold social power stars. The people he is influencing are not so lucky: they sacrifice power to maintain social standing.... even to the extent of forcing themselves into positions that are personally detrimental. (Want to listen to something awful? listen to a Mormon woman explaining why accepting eternal polygamy is a valuable abrahamic sacrifice... it's completely messed up thinking... but they do it anyway. It's victim-speak.)

Bushman does not have the courage to sacrifice his social standing and so he chooses an end point in his thinking that is safe for him but is unsafe for those he influences. He convinces the people he influences to have more courage than he is able to display and the people he influences use that greater courage to sacrifice their own needs in order to maintain belief.

When Bushman demonstrates enough courage to just speak the truth about Joseph Smith, we'll know he has demonstrated courage equal to the many LGBT Mormons who have worked hard to make the church safer and the many women who have sacrificed enough to either stand up to power or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, to maintain belief in a system that hurts them. Until then, Bushman is not nearly as impressive as a lot of the less empowered people I've met. He has some growing up to do.

It doesn't take much courage to be the cool guy at the top.

Not contributing much as of late, but continue to read. I see this is an important thread with some well thought out posts. J.S.Jr. followers and Bushman fans would be fortunate to read this thread, and especially this latest post from Rosebud.

[_suniluni2]

Wow, what a bombshell. Is this a new development or has Bushman been talking about the false narrative for a while?

If he's right that it's not sustainable, and I believe he is, what happens? The church will be forced to slowly retreat back to just being a christian church. If the "dominant narrative" is false, the "restoration" has no credible basis. So you've gotta fall back to being christ-centered and basic christian principles. Christ's teachings and history are much less falsifiable than Joseph Smith's.

If Bushman, who bent over backwards to defend Joseph Smith in Rough Stone, is feeling some type of way, I've got to believe we may be approaching a critical mass on the Mormon fraud.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think DCP and his water-witching comments and Uchtdorf with his i-rock comments, etc. are definitely trying to make highly questionable practices seem at least plausible. I don't think it'll work in the end. The magic world view is too out there to promote belief. It promotes too much doubt and Joseph Smith was wise to run away from it when he did.

I hope you're right. But if the magic world is "too out there", someone needs to tell KSL and the folks at Crone's Hollow. I wonder how many of the Utah lightworkers and channelers are former LDS? Mediums and tarot readers in Utah are pulling down $80 to $100 per hour for readings. Joseph Smith was in the same business. In the 21st century we're landing probes on other worlds and still have tons of people believing archaic nonsense.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=218&sid=72770&ad=39740645

...........

Natural clear quartz crystal has a remarkable energy. It vibrates all of the color frequencies of the spectrum.

Place this crystal ball in your home to:

Clean the atmosphere of negative energies
Cleanse your other stones
Amplify the energy of your healing stones
Use it as a meditation tool, aura cleansing, scrying (crystal ball gazing)

I hope I haven't misplaced my faith in rational thought but history seems to be on the side of reason.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, when Bushman says the dominant narrative is false, I think he intends to say that the historical account pushed by the LDS Church is inaccurate on so many points that it misrepresents history. I don't believe he is saying that the miraculous claims of Joseph Smith are not true. He believes in the miracles. He believes in the gold plates, the Hebrews in ancient America, the First Vision, and all of that stuff. And, in response to Rosebud's post, I would say that Bushman would only be immoral if he thought the miraculous claims of Smith were bogus. Bushman, like many other good, faithful LDS folk, will hold on to Smith's claims for dear life, as long as he is able. They may tweak the history here and there, when they come to see that the traditional Sunday legend doesn't match certain historical facts, but they can't bring themselves to see the desperate improbability of their point of view.

Take the work on Joseph Smith and magic. Eventually, people like Bushman had to cave in to the excellent evidence that Joseph practiced magic and divination. Since, however, Bushman avoids the logical implications and holds on to his faithful perspective, he starts to say that Joseph's magic was a kind of training ground for his prophetic activities. Bogus divination cedes to the "true" divination. As arbitrary and untenable as his judgment on that is, I think he really, truly believes that to be the case. It has to be. Otherwise the unacceptable becomes the case, and that is that Joseph was selling snake oil from the 1820 to 1844. And since that snake oil became a reasonably respectable church over time, it is inconceivable to him and so many others that it could be snake oil. But, as we know, the placebo effect is very real and powerful.

The most logical conclusion to draw is that Joseph was a deceiver from the beginning to the end. There is every indication that he lied and that he rationalized his lies on the grounds that he was doing good for many others while he served his and his family's interests. He rationalized when he committed crimes against others, and he rationalized when he took out his enemies. Eventually, it all caught up to him. By that time, I think he actually believed that his overall success not only justified his actions, but, in a more profound sense, showed that God supported his deception as it promoted a greater good of some kind.

[_Rosebud]

Well, when Bushman says the dominant narrative is false, I think he intends to say that the historical account pushed by the LDS Church is inaccurate on so many points that it misrepresents history. I don't believe he is saying that the miraculous claims of Joseph Smith are not true. He believes in the miracles. He believes in the gold plates, the Hebrews in ancient America, the First Vision, and all of that stuff. And, in response to Rosebud's post, I would say that Bushman would only be immoral if he thought the miraculous claims of Smith were bogus. Bushman, like many other good, faithful LDS folk, will hold on to Smith's claims for dear life, as long as he is able. They may tweak the history here and there, when they come to see that the traditional Sunday legend doesn't match certain historical facts, but they can't bring themselves to see the desperate improbability of their point of view.

Take the work on Joseph Smith and magic. Eventually, people like Bushman had to cave in to the excellent evidence that Joseph practiced magic and divination. Since, however, Bushman avoids the logical implications and holds on to his faithful perspective, he starts to say that Joseph's magic was a kind of training ground for his prophetic activities. Bogus divination cedes to the "true" divination. As arbitrary and untenable as his judgment on that is, I think he really, truly believes that to be the case. It has to be. Otherwise the unacceptable becomes the case, and that is that Joseph was selling snake oil from the 1820 to 1844. And since that snake oil became a reasonably respectable church over time, it is inconceivable to him and so many others that it could be snake oil. But, as we know, the placebo effect is very real and powerful.

The most logical conclusion to draw is that Joseph was a deceiver from the beginning to the end. There is every indication that he lied and that he rationalized his lies on the grounds that he was doing good for many others while he served his and his family's interests. He rationalized when he committed crimes against others, and he rationalized when he took out his enemies. Eventually, it all caught up to him. By that time, I think he actually believed that his overall success not only justified his actions, but, in a more profound sense, showed that God supported his deception as it promoted a greater good of some kind.

What I am saying that is different from what you are saying is that individuals hold unreasonable beliefs for self-gain and that the particular commodity Mormons gain for unreasonable belief is positive social reinforcement and social status. I hold people accountable for unreasonable beliefs based on their levels of education, intellectual capacity and the amount of social status and power they maintain or gain for holding the unreasonable belief. You perhaps hold the opinion that as long as you perceive someone to sincerely believe something, he or she is not accountable for the harm done as a result of that belief regardless of any gain received. I disagree.

My argument is based on the premise that individuals are not necessarily cognizant of the manner in which they benefit from holding a belief but that they still benefit regardless of self-awareness and that the level of their self-awareness is associated with their courage and ability to be honest with the self. I do not personally think (although I don't know, of course) that Bushman is cognizant of the rewards he gains for maintaining unreasonable belief. I still hold him accountable, however, because he is very intelligent, has a high level of education and especially because he maintains a very superior social status as a result of his maintained belief. I think that if he had more courage, he could develop the self-awareness to realize that his incentives for belief are based in self-gain, not the veracity of the beliefs he holds to unreasonably.

I have used this same argument against Nibley and Dehlin (in regards to his psychology education and his media actions that contribute to suicide contagion). The more knowledge, education or social perks one has or receives, the more one is accountable for harm done as a result of actions taken. Likewise, the more an individual gains from his or her public influence, the more accountable the individual is for harm done as a result of that influence.

Bushman is not innocent. He influences people with less intelligence and education than he has and many of them are self-sacrificial to maintain belief while his maintenance of belief brings him gain.

[_Sky]

This is why Bushman's behavior is immoral.

Bushman stands in a place of power and influence. He is intelligent and can surely see the connections between the dots. He chooses, however, to believe and he maintains his social status and power through that belief. At the same time, his belief communicates to women, teenage girls and others that Joseph Smith's sexual and marital behaviors were appropriate. Women and teenage girls must therefore accept that God sometimes wants them to be victims in order to forward His work on earth. Women who believe this will place themselves in positions of victimhood for what they believe to be a higher cause because just like Bushman they maintain belief (even in polygamy) in order to maintain social status.

Simply put: Bushman's decision to serve himself through his belief influences others' decisions to serve themselves through their beliefs.

But here's the key difference: Bushman has more social status than those he is influencing. He is a man at the top and he wins the gold social power stars. The people he is influencing are not so lucky: they sacrifice power to maintain social standing.... even to the extent of forcing themselves into positions that are personally detrimental. (Want to listen to something awful? listen to a Mormon woman explaining why accepting eternal polygamy is a valuable abrahamic sacrifice... it's completely messed up thinking... but they do it anyway. It's victim-speak.)

Bushman does not have the courage to sacrifice his social standing and so he chooses an end point in his thinking that is safe for him but is unsafe for those he influences. He convinces the people he influences to have more courage than he is able to display and the people he influences use that greater courage to sacrifice their own needs in order to maintain belief.

When Bushman demonstrates enough courage to just speak the truth about Joseph Smith, we'll know he has demonstrated courage equal to the many LGBT Mormons who have worked hard to make the church safer and the many women who have sacrificed enough to either stand up to power or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, to maintain belief in a system that hurts them. Until then, Bushman is not nearly as impressive as a lot of the less empowered people I've met. He has some growing up to do.

It doesn't take much courage to be the cool guy at the top.

Why not take Bushman at his word, instead of somehow impugning his motives and questioning his integrity, as you seem to be doing here?

Critics certainly don't like it when apologists do it to them...

He is an honest man, in my opinion. He means what he says he means. He just reached a different conclusion than you.

Reasonable minds can differ, don't you think?

[_Rosebud]

This is why Bushman's behavior is immoral.

Bushman stands in a place of power and influence. He is intelligent and can surely see the connections between the dots. He chooses, however, to believe and he maintains his social status and power through that belief. At the same time, his belief communicates to women, teenage girls and others that Joseph Smith's sexual and marital behaviors were appropriate. Women and teenage girls must therefore accept that God sometimes wants them to be victims in order to forward His work on earth. Women who believe this will place themselves in positions of victimhood for what they believe to be a higher cause because just like Bushman they maintain belief (even in polygamy) in order to maintain social status.

Simply put: Bushman's decision to serve himself through his belief influences others' decisions to serve themselves through their beliefs.

But here's the key difference: Bushman has more social status than those he is influencing. He is a man at the top and he wins the gold social power stars. The people he is influencing are not so lucky: they sacrifice power to maintain social standing.... even to the extent of forcing themselves into positions that are personally detrimental. (Want to listen to something awful? listen to a Mormon woman explaining why accepting eternal polygamy is a valuable abrahamic sacrifice... it's completely messed up thinking... but they do it anyway. It's victim-speak.)

Bushman does not have the courage to sacrifice his social standing and so he chooses an end point in his thinking that is safe for him but is unsafe for those he influences. He convinces the people he influences to have more courage than he is able to display and the people he influences use that greater courage to sacrifice their own needs in order to maintain belief.

When Bushman demonstrates enough courage to just speak the truth about Joseph Smith, we'll know he has demonstrated courage equal to the many LGBT Mormons who have worked hard to make the church safer and the many women who have sacrificed enough to either stand up to power or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, to maintain belief in a system that hurts them. Until then, Bushman is not nearly as impressive as a lot of the less empowered people I've met. He has some growing up to do.

It doesn't take much courage to be the cool guy at the top.

Why not take Bushman at his word, instead of somehow impugning his motives and questioning his integrity, as you seem to be doing here?

Critics certainly don't like it when apologists do it to them...

He is an honest man, in my opinion. He means what he says he means. He just reached a different conclusion than you.

Reasonable minds can differ, don't you think?

Not in this case.

Because:

Kishkumen:

It is a problem, and yet it is also, unfortunately for the apologists, entirely consistent with Joseph Smith's later behavior in regards to polygamy. Engage in stupefying degrees of dishonesty? Why, yes! He did. And he always did. Polygamy wasn't a sudden exception in an otherwise upright life. The same character who lied about seeing buried treasure lied about having plates and lied about an angel compelling him to "marry" teenage girls. Once one sees the continuity in the pattern of Smith's behavior, it is impossible to imagine him being honest about finding gold plates, inscribed by Egyptian-writing Hebrews, buried in upstate New York.

[_Sanctorian]

He is an honest man, in my opinion. He means what he says he means.

He said the dominant LDS narrative was not true. I believe he was honest and meant what he said. I also agree with him.

[_cwald]

He is an honest man, in my opinion. He means what he says he means.

He said the dominant LDS narrative was not true. I believe he was honest and meant what he said. I also agree with him.

Yep.

[_why me]

Well, this is quite funny. I never thought Bushman was rejecting the "Gospel." What he was saying, though, was even more significant. The narrative under which the Church has operated for generations is false. So what is true? Is the adjusted historical narrative true? Do we place confidence in that? What is the relationship between the historical narrative and the Gospel? These are all huge questions. No one need wonder whether Bushman is loyal. He is. But the questions he has raised leave everything aside from the choice of faith and obedience up for grabs. There is no true narrative. The narrative always changes.

Not really. Nothing is up for grabs. It has always been the case that as historians discover new facts, narratives would have to change. Historians have debated gospel narratives for centuries and it hasn't made much impact on christians. Christmas is still celebrated on December 25th.

But the narrative of the LDS church being true has not changed. Nothing bushman stated confronts that narrative. And that is what is important. People need to learn to accept narratives as much information is known and discovered. And if these narratives do not challenge the truth claim but rather give a different take on it....what is the problem?