Bushman admits the Dominant LDS narrative is not true

[_Rosebud]

It is possible to homestly believe something and to be honestly stating what one honestly believes and also to be dishonest with the self about the relationship between that honest belief and gains one receives for maintaining it. Incentives for dishonesty to self are not generally recognized by those who do not have the self-awareness to recognize them. There is little incentive to increase self-awareness when the gains one receives for maintaining belief are great, as in Bushman's case.

Dishonesty with the self about personal gain related to maintaining belief becomes immoral when one is very influential and has advantages over those whom one is influencing (like intelligence and education) and when the gains one receives are very great relative to the harm that comes, often but not always in the form of self-sacrifice for maintaining the same beliefs, among those who are influenced.

[_Kishkumen]

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 am hopeful that your intolerant perspective doesn't catch on. It isn't the least bit helpful to define someone as immoral based on your own assumptions about what s/he should know and the benefits s/he allegedly derives from a supposed high status. (A person as humane and intelligent as Richard Bushman would have derived benefits from his good character and work ethic in any society.) There is a disturbing sort of anti-elitism in this that does not consider factors of human limitations and the full measure of a person's contribution to society. Bushman is a decent fellow. He is guilty of no crime. He may be wrong about Mormonism, but Mormonism is not so devoid of value that it offers nothing positive. His participation in Mormonism as an educated person should not be grounds for unthinking/shallow thinking condemnation of his character. Your post has the eerie feel of "Cultural Revolution" in it.

I would agree that it is possible Bushman could reach different conclusions. But I think there are very human and understandable reasons why he does not. My way of handling that difference is to disagree, not to call him "immoral." If one calls him "immoral", then the predictable result is the end of the conversation or the failure to have one altogether. To call him immoral comes dangerously close to demanding his punishment and/or compulsory reformation. The wiser route is to stick to what we can say with reasonable humility and confidence: we disagree with him; we have reasons we believe to be sound; and we will continue to disagree reasonably until he and others like him are persuaded of our views. If that day of persuasion never comes, we will hopefully have found ourselves not to have caused anyone else harm, and to have improved ourselves and others, even if that means that we were the ones ultimately persuaded of the incorrectness of our views.

Charity and humility are crucial in human disagreement. Without them, intolerance and violence reign. I regularly fail at exhibiting charity and humility, but I continue to try, and I dearly hope that I do not, or do not in the future, stoop to calling those with whom I disagree immoral for reasons such as this.

[_toon]

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.

I have a hard time even remembering what I believed in when I was 19. Perhaps too many brain cells have been shot, but even when I try to remember, I still that those memories are an unreliable reconstruction.

[_toon]

Are all heroes, martyrs, prophets hyped frauds?

There's still Clayton Kershaw.

[_consiglieri]

Bushman's statement that he still believes pretty much the same stuff he did when he was a 19-year old missionary reminds me of Joseph Smith's 1844 statement that he had always taught the three members of the Godhead were separate and distinct personages.

[_Maksutov]

Bushman's statement that he still believes pretty much the same stuff he did when he was a 19-year old missionary reminds me of Joseph Smith's 1844 statement that he had always taught the three members of the Godhead were separate and distinct personages.

It reminds me of the "Sunday School Answers are the Best Answers" and "Not Even Once" memes. People frozen in childhood.

[_sock puppet]

Isn't the LDS mantra these days, "Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten Junior Sunday School."

[_Rosebud]

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 am hopeful that your intolerant perspective doesn't catch on. It isn't the least bit helpful to define someone as immoral based on your own assumptions about what s/he should know and the benefits s/he allegedly derives from a supposed high status. (A person as humane and intelligent as Richard Bushman would have derived benefits from his good character and work ethic in any society.) There is a disturbing sort of anti-elitism in this that does not consider factors of human limitations and the full measure of a person's contribution to society. Bushman is a decent fellow. He is guilty of no crime. He may be wrong about Mormonism, but Mormonism is not so devoid of value that it offers nothing positive. His participation in Mormonism as an educated person should not be grounds for unthinking/shallow thinking condemnation of his character. Your post has the eerie feel of "Cultural Revolution" in it.

I would agree that it is possible Bushman could reach different conclusions. But I think there are very human and understandable reasons why he does not. My way of handling that difference is to disagree, not to call him "immoral." If one calls him "immoral", then the predictable result is the end of the conversation or the failure to have one altogether. To call him immoral comes dangerously close to demanding his punishment and/or compulsory reformation. The wiser route is to stick to what we can say with reasonable humility and confidence: we disagree with him; we have reasons we believe to be sound; and we will continue to disagree reasonably until he and others like him are persuaded of our views. If that day of persuasion never comes, we will hopefully have found ourselves not to have caused anyone else harm, and to have improved ourselves and others, even if that means that we were the ones ultimately persuaded of the incorrectness of our views.

Charity and humility are crucial in human disagreement. Without them, intolerance and violence reign. I regularly fail at exhibiting charity and humility, but I continue to try, and I dearly hope that I do not, or do not in the future, stoop to calling those with whom I disagree immoral for reasons such as this.

Bushman, in my estimation (not knowing him) is a good man. He is an honest man as far as he seems to have the capacity to be honest. I agree. And he still benefits socially from the harm the narrative he defends has done to others. That is immoral. It is also human. Nothing much exceptional about him at present. Perhaps he'll surprise me. I hope so. At that point, I will call him spectacular. Right now, I'll stick with a good man who immorally benefits from a situation that harms others. Honest, dishonest, moral and immoral. All. People are not black and white anymore than much of anything else in life is.

In regards the patronizing charity and tolerance lecture you shared:

I have been too tolerant. So has my my mother. So were my grandmothers, my g-grandmothers, my g-g-grandmothers and my g-g-g-grandmothers. We have all been asked to tolerate this narrative and have even been told that through tolerating it we will prove our worthiness, etc. Many of my female ancestors practiced polygamy. One of my ggg-grandmothers is sealed to Joseph Smith (still) instead of her husband who was killed at Haun's Mill. The narrative is abusive to women and girls and, by extension, to LGBT Mormons. We have a church full of women who defend the abusive narrative: victims defending a system that hurts them and many doing so in order to prove their tolerance and charity.

So rather than giving me a humble tolerance and charity lecture, respond to my arguments. I've been getting tolerance and charity lectures since I was two -- I'm a Mormon woman and tolerance and charity are my expected social roles. I'm breaking my role and I'm breaking it intentionally. I'm switching things up a bit: Bushman's turn to be challenged and to be told he has some growing up to do. He does. He defends an abusive system and he needs to self-sacrifice enough to grow out of his defense. If he's strong enough, he'll manage to do it. It will be a lot to give, but it won't be more than any of the women in my family have given for the narrative.

Unlike you, I hope my intolerance for men who publicly defend this narrative in order to maintain social status catches on. That's much better than intolerance of women who won't accept it or its defense. The latter is the long-time status quo and intolerance of women who will not be charitable and tolerant of men who selfishly accept this foolishness as they simultaneously benefit from it has been instrumental in subjugating Mormon women.

In other words, I want women to become less tolerant. I don't want to hear any more Mormon women defending Joseph Smith's polygamy or talking about the Abrahamic sacrifices they're willing to make as they accept eternal polygamy for the sake of truth. It is in empowering Mormon women and sending them the message that it is okay for them to be less tolerant and less charitable that they will gain the courage to get out of their disempowered positions.

Less tolerance and less charity is the way forward for women. And we need to stop accepting lectures given us by Mormon men who have no clue what it's like to veil their faces in the temple, so to speak.

[_sock puppet]

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 am hopeful that your intolerant perspective doesn't catch on. It isn't the least bit helpful to define someone as immoral based on your own assumptions about what s/he should know and the benefits s/he allegedly derives from a supposed high status. (A person as humane and intelligent as Richard Bushman would have derived benefits from his good character and work ethic in any society.) There is a disturbing sort of anti-elitism in this that does not consider factors of human limitations and the full measure of a person's contribution to society. Bushman is a decent fellow. He is guilty of no crime. He may be wrong about Mormonism, but Mormonism is not so devoid of value that it offers nothing positive. His participation in Mormonism as an educated person should not be grounds for unthinking/shallow thinking condemnation of his character. Your post has the eerie feel of "Cultural Revolution" in it.

I would agree that it is possible Bushman could reach different conclusions. But I think there are very human and understandable reasons why he does not. My way of handling that difference is to disagree, not to call him "immoral." If one calls him "immoral", then the predictable result is the end of the conversation or the failure to have one altogether. To call him immoral comes dangerously close to demanding his punishment and/or compulsory reformation. The wiser route is to stick to what we can say with reasonable humility and confidence: we disagree with him; we have reasons we believe to be sound; and we will continue to disagree reasonably until he and others like him are persuaded of our views. If that day of persuasion never comes, we will hopefully have found ourselves not to have caused anyone else harm, and to have improved ourselves and others, even if that means that we were the ones ultimately persuaded of the incorrectness of our views.

Charity and humility are crucial in human disagreement. Without them, intolerance and violence reign. I regularly fail at exhibiting charity and humility, but I continue to try, and I dearly hope that I do not, or do not in the future, stoop to calling those with whom I disagree immoral for reasons such as this.

Bushman, in my estimation (not knowing him) is a good man. He is an honest man as far as he seems to have the capacity to be honest. I agree. And he still benefits socially from the harm the narrative he defends has done to others. That is immoral. It is also human. Nothing much exceptional about him at present. Perhaps he'll surprise me. I hope so. At that point, I will call him spectacular. Right now, I'll stick with a good man who immorally benefits from a situation that harms others. Honest, dishonest, moral and immoral. All. People are not black and white anymore than much of anything else in life is.

In regards the patronizing charity and tolerance lecture you shared:

I have been too tolerant. So has my my mother. So were my grandmothers, my g-grandmothers, my g-g-grandmothers and my g-g-g-grandmothers. We have all been asked to tolerate this narrative and have even been told that through tolerating it we will prove our worthiness, etc. Many of my female ancestors practiced polygamy. One of my ggg-grandmothers is sealed to Joseph Smith (still) instead of her husband who was killed at Haun's Mill. The narrative is abusive to women and girls and, by extension, to LGBT Mormons. We have a church full of women who defend the abusive narrative: victims defending a system that hurts them and many doing so in order to prove their tolerance and charity.

So rather than giving me a humble tolerance and charity lecture, respond to my arguments. I've been getting tolerance and charity lectures since I was two -- I'm a Mormon woman and tolerance and charity are my expected social roles. I'm breaking my role and I'm breaking it intentionally. I'm switching things up a bit: Bushman's turn to be challenged and to be told he has some growing up to do. He does. He defends an abusive system and he needs to self-sacrifice enough to grow out of his defense. If he's strong enough, he'll manage to do it. It will be a lot to give, but it won't be more than any of the women in my family have given for the narrative.

Unlike you, I hope my intolerance for men who publicly defend this narrative in order to maintain social status catches on. That's much better than intolerance of women who won't accept it or its defense. The latter is the long-time status quo and intolerance of women who will not be charitable and tolerant of men who selfishly accept this foolishness as they simultaneously benefit from it has been instrumental in subjugating Mormon women.

In other words, I want women to become less tolerant. I don't want to hear any more Mormon women defending Joseph Smith's polygamy or talking about the Abrahamic sacrifices they're willing to make as they accept eternal polygamy for the sake of truth. It is in empowering Mormon women and sending them the message that it is okay for them to be less tolerant and less charitable that they will gain the courage to get out of their disempowered positions.

Less tolerance and less charity is the way forward for women. And we need to stop accepting lectures given us by Mormon men who have no clue what it's like to veil their faces in the temple, so to speak.

Like you, I'm not a fan of the Neville Chamberlain approach: appeasement.

I think you are on the right track.

[_Kishkumen]

Rosebud, I would have said the same thing to anyone who called Bushman immoral in the way you did. Now that you have clarified your position, I think we are probably somewhat less distant in mindset than I originally thought. I still would not call Bushman immoral any more than I would call you immoral. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that women not tolerate their subjugation. I don't think true charity is inconsistent with strength and independence. To the contrary, true charity, in my view, will always be lacking so long as there is inequality and hatred (and that goes both ways). So, no, I was not advocating that you tolerate subjugation, as you seem to think.

As a side note, and this is not directed at Rosebud: posting like a stereotypically strident and two-dimensional anti-Mormon bigot doesn't do anyone any favors.