Bushman admits the Dominant LDS narrative is not true

[_Rosebud]

Well, I think it would be valuable for Mormons to start considering the immorality of social perks received for taking certain socially acceptable actions (like supporting abusive narratives).

Human incentive lies behind many of our unreasonable actions and beliefs. Considering the incentives behind why individuals repeat unreasonable narratives and believe unreasonable things helps develop self-awareness. Self-awareness can help good people (like I presume Bushman to be) stop making selfish decisions that harm others. It helps all of us become more honest with ourselves. Honesty with self helps people develop a higher form of honesty in action and belief. If Bushman considers his own immorality, that will be better for him and for those he influences. I don't think he needs to be treated with kid gloves.

Let me talk, too (since we're on the subject) of the social perks my ggg grandmother received for allowing herself to be sealed to Joseph Smith. Her dil/my gg g who recorded the story received social perks for this too

______________________________________________________________________

Here's the shortened version of my ggg g's story according to her daughter-in-law/my gg granadmother. The story was recorded years later and acts as the official family explanation of my ggg g's sealing to Joseph. This is the narrative:

1. Before my ggg g married her first husband, her first husband fell deeply in love with another woman and became estranged from her. The woman died without ever marrying on earth.

2. My ggg g's first husband dies at Haun's mill along with one of her children.

3. My ggg g takes a second husband and faces the question as to which of her two husbands she should be sealed to.

4. My ggg goes to Joseph Smith to get advice about which one she should be sealed to saying, "I cannot make up my mind what to do about it, but I am willing to state the circumstances to the Prophet Joseph and abide by his counsel."

5. Joseph replies to my ggg g "Sister..., I can't tell you tonight what to do, but you come to me two weeks from tonight and I will give you the word of the Lord on it."

6. Before two weeks were up, Joseph was killed.

7. Since the prophet had died, her current husband said, "The prophet is gone and you cannot now get the word of the Lord," and my ggg g felt she then had the right to choose. He current husband urged her to choose him.

8. And then this happened (these are her dil's/my gg g's words):

"The situation perplexed her and on Sunday evening -- just two weeks from the time they had talked to the Prophet -- she was not feeling well and did not go to meeting, but went to her bedroom and lay down on her bed. Thinking of her problem, she was surprised by her room becoming brilliantly illuminated by a most beautiful light. She said she saw no one, but a voice perfectly audible said, "Choose Brigham proxy and be sealed to Joseph."

And then, just like some other narratives we're familiar with:

"She was astonished and thought the communication was surely from an evil source. While thus thinking, and almost overcome with astonishment, her room lighted as before and the same voice said to her again, 'Choose Brigham proxy and be sealed to Joseph.'"

Believe it or not (wink), her dil thinks this probably happened a third time but acknowledges her memory might not serve her well.

9. Story goes on: my ggg g thinks the vision is evil. She soon finds out that her current husband had "gotten in trouble with a hired girl" and therefore wanted to hurry the sealing. Her current husband marries the second girl, becomes abusive and the girl leaves him. My ggg g stays with him and continues to struggle, trying to decide if she was crazy in her vision that told her to marry Joseph. (I'm unsure if both sealings happened.)

10. After my ggg g and her second husband arrive in SLC, they go to BY's office to ask him what to do about all of the conflict in their marriage. BY says, "'Yes, Sister... it is right that you should have a divorce, you and Bro... stand up.' They stood up and by virtue of the authority he held, President Young unsealed them -- and that was all the divorce she ever had." Her then ex-husband soon married another woman and went to California.

11. My ggg g is in despair. Doesn't know what to do. Goes to BY's office for advice and says, my son "is a good, steady boy and if you think he is old enough to stand for his father I want him to do so and I will be sealed to my first [husband] ... After considering the matter for some time, President Young arose to depart and said only, "No, Sister ..., you can't do it," and left without explanation.

12. My ggg g is evidently emotionally tormented.

13. My ggg g goes to visit her friend Aunt Mary Ann Young and hopes not to see BY. She does run into him and BY asks how she is doing. She replies that she isn't doing well etc. and finally asks, "What can I do?" BY says, "If I tell you what to do, will you do it?" She agrees. BY then says, "Choose a proxy and be sealed to Joseph the Prophet."

14. And so she chooses BY and gets it over with.

15. Years later the kids are all upset about it because they think their mother should be sealed to their father and they've had some bad experiences with polygamy in their own lives in the meantime. Instead, their father gets sealed to his supposed long, lost love from before their parents' marriage. The kids have to, therefore, decide which of their parents to be sealed to. They decide that if they have to choose between their mother and the Prophet and their father and a stranger, they'll choose the former.

_______________________________________________

There you have it... the family legends.

The drama of these marriages and sealings had a major affect on the wellbeing of my family. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young won out because they were the top alpha males. The other males lost. The women lost.

But the women also received social perks for accepting the sealing to Joseph. My gg g (the dil) wrote a record clearly spiritually justifying my ggg g's decisions. Aligning oneself with the top alpha males and the narratives the top alpha males promote brings others social perks. This is the way Mormonism works. It's time, I think, for people to become more cognizant of it.

Today's alpha males would better serve the rest of the community if they'd learn to be honest with themselves about their social incentives for their unreasonable beliefs as well as the harm that comes to others because they promote them. Their promotion of them is immoral and, again, the top alpha males do not need to be treated with kid gloves. They're big boys. In fact, treating them with kid gloves further perpetuates the negative system.

The alpha males have wide influence on all Mormon families as illustrated by the narrative above. If any one of them might be good enough to begin setting a better example of self-honesty for the other top alpha males and, further, of recognizing the immorality of top alpha male actions so that the rest of the top alpha males might follow along, it would be positive for Mormonism. Bushman might be one who is good and strong enough to do so despite any loss of social perks he would face. He seems a fairly stand up guy considering his position. And his actions are still immoral: supporting an abusive narrative hurts people who have less power than he does.

[_Kishkumen]

Today's alpha males would better serve the rest of the community if they'd learn to be honest with themselves about their social incentives for their unreasonable beliefs as well as the harm that comes to others because they promote them. Their promotion of them is immoral and, again, the top alpha males do not need to be treated with kid gloves. They're big boys. In fact, treating them with kid gloves further perpetuates the negative system.

The alpha males have wide influence on all Mormon families as illustrated by the narrative above. If any one of them might be good enough to begin setting a better example of self-honesty for the other top alpha males and, further, of recognizing the immorality of top alpha male actions so that the rest of the top alpha males might follow along, it would be positive for Mormonism. Bushman might be one who is good and strong enough to do so despite any loss of social perks he would face. He seems a fairly stand up guy considering his position. And his actions are still immoral: supporting an abusive narrative hurts people who have less power than he does.

Evidently you have been asleep for the past decade. If there is one thing all of us should have learned by now, fierce rhetorical attacks against one's opponents, no matter how seemingly well deserved, usually backfire and only antagonize the very people one hopes to persuade. You also seem to be unaware that some of the most vocal opponents of your interpretation of Mormon history and contemporary Mormon gender dynamics are Mormon women. So, while it may be entertaining and enjoyable to preach to the choir here and get a big boost from sympathetic minds, you are succeeding in alienating your target audience by calling an obviously decent person "immoral."

Of course, I am guilty of more than a little heated rhetoric myself. LOL. Oh, and I doubt there are any people in our target audiences here anyway.

[_Lemmie]

You also seem to be unaware that some of the most vocal opponents of your interpretation of Mormon history and contemporary Mormon gender dynamics are Mormon women.

Not to mention that stories that focus on attributes like this and also stories that tell the opposite are neither unique to nor isolated within Mormonism. How does this define the LDS church if it's found everywhere?

There are plenty of issues to take exception with, you're better off arguing from that standpoint. For example, I do think that giving the priesthood to young boys brings an element into their lives that is not readily available to girls of the same age, at least within the equivalent church activities and organizations. I wouldn't say all boys with the priesthood are immoral because of the unfairness, however. It's the doctrine and practice I have a beef with, not the boys themselves.

[_consiglieri]

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

Reminds me of one of my favorite memes:

In Mormonism, you never really graduate from Primary.



(Of course, I made that up. But it is still one of my favorites.)

[_Kishkumen]

Not to mention that stories that focus on attributes like this and also stories that tell the opposite are neither unique to nor isolated within Mormonism. How does this define the LDS church if it's found everywhere?

There are plenty of issues to take exception with, you're better off arguing from that standpoint. For example, I do think that giving the priesthood to young boys brings an element into their lives that is not readily available to girls of the same age, at least within the equivalent church activities and organizations. I wouldn't say all boys with the priesthood are immoral because of the unfairness, however. It's the doctrine and practice I have a beef with, not the boys themselves.

My guess is that Rosebud would say, with some justification, that we can't hold little boys accountable in the same way we can Bushman.

Another problem I see is that these idiosyncratic uses of language, in this case Rosebud's use of immoral, however attractive they may be in the abstract, are of dubious value in persuading others. The average person's idea of immoral is so far removed from Rosebud's usage that many people will just shrug in confusion and think she's a nut. I say I am sympathetic because I have a tendency to do the same.

[_Maksutov]

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

Reminds me of one of my favorite memes:

In Mormonism, you never really graduate from Primary.



(Of course, I made that up. But it is still one of my favorites.)

For many years Utah radio DJ Tom Barberi had a campaign to legalize adulthood in Utah. He finally gave up.

[_Lemmie]

My guess is that Rosebud would say, with some justification, that we can't hold little boys accountable in the same way we can Bushman.

I would hope so! On the other hand....

In Mormonism, you never really graduate from Primary. -consiglieri

[_I have a question]

My guess is that Rosebud would say, with some justification, that we can't hold little boys accountable in the same way we can Bushman.

I would hope so! On the other hand....

In Mormonism, you never really graduate from Primary. -consiglieri

What a great quote!

[_Sanctorian]

Bushman shared this with John Dehlin today

July 19, 2016

In the middle of the week last week I began to receive thank you notes from people who had read a statement of mine about the Church’s historical narrative requiring reconstruction. I had no idea what was going on until Dan Peterson wrote about a “kerfuffle”—the word of choice for the occasion—on the blogs. At church on Sunday, D. Fletcher asked me, did you know you were the subject of a kerfuffle. A friend who had been mission president in Brazil sent me a link to a blog in Portugese. Eventually I learned it all began with the transcript of a comment I made at a fireside at Mark England’s house a little over a month ago and posted by John Dehlin.

Sampling a few of the comments on Dan Peterson’s blog I discovered that some people thought I had thrown in the towel and finally admitted the Church’s story of its divine origins did not hold up. Others read my words differently; I was only saying that there were many errors in the standard narrative that required correction.

The reactions should not have surprised me. People have had different takes on Rough Stone Rolling ever since it came out. Some found the information about Joseph Smith so damning his prophethood was thrown into question. Others were grateful to find a prophet who had human flaws, giving them hope they themselves could qualify for inspiration despite their human weaknesses. The same facts; opposite reactions.

The different responses mystify me. I have no idea why some people are thrown for a loop when they learn church history did not occur as they had been taught in Sunday School, while others roll with the punches. Some feel angry and betrayed; others are pleased to have a more realistic account. One theorist has postulated an “emotional over-ride” that affects how we respond to information. But the admission that we ourselves are subjective human beings whose rational mechanisms are not entirely trustworthy does not diminish our sense that we are right and our counterparts mistaken.

As it is, I still come down on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations—while others viewing the same facts are convinced they disqualify Joseph Smith entirely. A lot of pain, anger, and alienation come out of these disputes. I wish we could find ways to be more generous and understanding with one another.

Richard Bushman

[_Sanctorian]

The different responses mystify me. I have no idea why some people are thrown for a loop when they learn church history did not occur as they had been taught in Sunday School, while others roll with the punches.

I have a theory. People don't like being lied to. When they feel lied to, they no longer trust the source for additional knowledge.