Bushman admits the Dominant LDS narrative is not true

[_Johannes]

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.

Our former Prime Minister, David Cameron, once described his Labour predecessor Gordon Brown as "an analogue politician in a digital age". Elder Bushman is evidently an analogue historian in a digital age. For those of us who are middle-aged and technophobic, this maybe offers some hope

[_grindael]

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

Now this truly baffles me. It's not really hard to understand why some feel feel angry and betrayed; it isn't about ERRORS. Even "many errors". Is he for real here? It is about having information and KNOWINGLY PRODUCING THOSE ERRORS to contradict the information you have in order to promulgate a certain narrative that makes Joseph Smith look like a saint and the Church some kind of PERFECT DIVINE INSTITUTION. People actually BELIEVED this narrative and based their FAITH upon it. When they find out they've been duped, well... This kind of thing pisses some people off. Others, who have various reasons for staying in the church (like Bushman) let it go. Either through cognitive dissonance, or simple I don't give a crap, or other various and sundry reasons like family, career, social reasons, actual belief in gold plates and angels with swords, etc., these people give the ones that perpetuate these lies a pass. This is what mystifies many and why there was such a "kerfuffle" and we are having this discussion.

Claiming to simply be mystified at people's reactions to all this just stinks to high heaven. It's like he throws all common sense out the window and puts on a dumbfounded look that isn't fooling anyone.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Agreed, but somehow that eludes Bushman, or so he doth protest. I find his claim to being mystified by it to be disingenuous given his background, training and experience.

[_Aristotle Smith]

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

Um, maybe because people in Sunday School are told to strictly regurgitate what is in the manuals, you know THE damned MANUALS OVERSEEN BY THE PROPHETS, SEERS, AND REVELATORS. In fact they are explicitly told to not look at anything outside of the manuals, because the manuals have the pure doctrine. Yeah, can't imagine why people would think those are trustworthy.

while others roll with the punches.

In my experience, these tend to people be who didn't care much to begin with.

Some feel angry and betrayed;

Kind of like other situations in life where trusted persons lie to you, right? Is feeling angry and betrayed not an appropriate response when a spouse, a friend, a boss, or a co-worker knowingly lies to you? If yes (and the right answer is "yes" unless you are a sociopath), then why not when you are lied to by God's one true church lead by His one true prophet?

others are pleased to have a more realistic account.

I've honestly never seen this. I have seen people pleased to discover that someone of Bushman's stature confirms what they have independently researched, because they think they are going crazy because of the disconnect between the official Mormon story and the facts they have learned.

One theorist has postulated an “emotional over-ride” that affects how we respond to information.

It's called getting pissed off because you were lied to and betrayed. It's coming to the realization that the only difference between your asshole boss and the GA's when it comes to the truth is that at least your boss cuts you a paycheck for the privilege of lying to you. The GA's want you to cut them a check for that special treatment.

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.

This only works if you are 100% postmodern. If you still believe that there are objective facts, then it's rational to believe that lots of strong evidence it pointing those facts out. What you and your counterparts believe is irrelevant, the facts stand on their own and suggest a straightforward interpretation in many cases. Not all, but many.

[_Quasimodo]

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

I just caught what you wrote. Tom Barberi was a good friend of my sister's. I met him a few times when I was a teenager. Great guy and VERY funny. She was also of friend of Will Lucas (sad story, there).

Do you know what ever happened to Barberi? He must be painfully old by now.

[_suniluni2]

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.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does it take a genius to come up with that theory? He is so disingenuous here. He has to have some idea, just a little. Being taught things all your life in ss then learning it was, at least in part, bs. This is a cultish mind control tactic. How dare you be confused when the church gets caught in lies! How dare you not "roll with punches" like the faithful are doing!


[My post earlier in this thread was wishful thinking - I'd thought when he said the dominant narrative was false that he would form the reasonable deductions that follow. I was very wrong. But hey, at least he's on record saying the narrative is false, better than nothing I suppose.]

[_Maksutov]

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

I just caught what you wrote. Tom Barberi was a good friend of my sister's. I met him a few times when I was a teenager. Great guy and VERY funny. She was also of friend of Will Lucas (sad story, there).

Do you know what ever happened to Barberi? He must be painfully old by now.

He's on Facebook and looks better than me.