An unfortunate 1950s fundamentalism


tesuji
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Didn't Bushman claim he had lost his testimony a while back, but that he had reformed a (slightly less strong) one with a reformed idea of how the church history was?

Thus came a push (or he was one of several) to rewrite church history in their own image?

He was the one that said that he had NO testimony in what the Church had taught about Joseph Smith and the rest of church history and that Church history itself was untrue (the official Church history written that we used for over a century).

Thus, it had to be reconstructed.  He accepted the anti-Mormon stories as fact and in light of those, could not accept the Church's own history and records at the time.

He now claims to have a testimony...but his testimony has inferred that at times he could NOT have a testimony of Joseph Smith...but he has one of Jesus Christ and thus, perhaps, a reformed idea of what Joseph Smith as a prophet.

I'm not a Big fan of Richard Bushman, but his impact on the Church history departments and Church history in general over the past decade is undeniable.  He and those who follow his ideas are perhaps one of the biggest proponents in the rewrite of Church history today and the revisionist forms that they are propagating.

From what I gather he is the epitome of a wolf in sheeps clothing.  His book (s) have probably contributed more to leaving the LDS Church or refusing to join it than many others who were verifiably anti-Mormon.  It is ironic he has such influence.

On the otherhand, some have said he has helped them stay in the church...after they also read many anti-Mormon articles and were seeking answers (they accepted the anti-Mormon articles as truth vs. that of the Church history at the time or even the words of the prophets including Joseph's Nephew and Great Nephews of Joseph F. and Joseph Fielding).

I am NOT a fan of Bushman or the revisionist history he has brought into the Church over the past few years.  He is at the very core of what I feel is tearing a LOT of the church apart within those who are leaving it.  I do NOT think it is unintentional.  He says he has a testimony of the gospel, but he was one of the first to try to make it so that the Church appeared to verify that Joseph was involved in folk magic, and other items backing up claims the Anti-Mormons had made against the Church since it's inception over 189 years ago.  He may have a testimony, but it seems odd in the way he's tried to tear down Joseph Smith in his writings and recreate him to validate the statements of Josephs enemies and the church's enemies that they have been making for almost two centuries since the prophet's first organization of the Church..

IMO....of course.

Be careful there.  Lying about Bushman has become de rigeur in anti-Mormon circles, and we don’t want to be caught embracing the lies just because we might be leery of some of Bushman’s work.  

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/yet-again-has-richard-bushman-declared-the-dominant-narrative-of-church-history-false.html

Takeaway quote from Bushman himself, when he heard about how some of his statements were being perverted:

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.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Be careful there.  Lying about Bushman has become de rigeur in anti-Mormon circles, and we don’t want to be caught embracing the lies just because we might be leery of some of Bushman’s work.  

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/yet-again-has-richard-bushman-declared-the-dominant-narrative-of-church-history-false.html

Takeaway quote from Bushman himself, when he heard about how some of his statements were being perverted:

 

 

I understand what he said...there's a REASON anti-Mormon circles quote him...a LOT...though. 

He has probably done more to side with them and turn revisionist history today in agreement with them than actually protect the LDS church.  HE has used his position of influence within the church and the world to push a view that apparently has been taken as the prominent view among many today. 

In truth, though his history is sound in the secular world (And in fact, very good, perhaps some of the best, and very acceptable in the secular world), the basics of his writings have been to throw all the testimony of writers of history in the Church from Oliver Cowdery and John Taylor up until the ideas of the 80s and 90s under the bus.  In addition, in his writings he has called several prophets liars, if not blatantly, by very obvious insinuation.

WHY he is accepted still...I do not know.  To me, it is obvious he is NOT really pro-church...for though his words he may say one thing to Mormons, he says absolutely other items in many of his writings and his actions also say otherwise in many instances.

It is CLEAR he does NOT believe in what the prophets Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or John Taylor said (favoring the arguments of those who were against them far higher than themselves, and casting them aside by saying they and their testimonies are untrue...what would you have me do when he says that...simply accept that they were lying and we should accept his revisionist history)?

He has tried to backtrack in some instances BECAUSE of what he said was broadcast by the enemies of the church.  The REASON is because he is using their sources and accepting their words as true, rather than what Church history used to be based upon, which were the writings and testimonies of the Prophets and General Authorities previously.

I am NOT a fan of Bushman...and that's not just as a Member, but as someone who is a Historian and knows the trade.  I respect him as a historian of the world, but as far as his reports on the prophets...I don't respect his ideas on that...really...at all.  In regards to looking at the church from a SECULAR and WORLDY viewpoint, he is on solid footing...but in the secular viewpoint...the church is not true.

On the viewpoint of accepting Church History (as it was written) he has done ALL he could to tear it down from the inside out.  He is the very reason I'd say he is a wolf in sheeps clothing...one that may very well successfully destroy the church one day, or be one of the major components of doing so, if it ever is torn down.  His writings have been VERY advantageous to the enemies of the church for the past few years and VERY effective at saying the church itself validates what it's enemies have said about it via the decades. 

I really have no idea why the church is so accepting of his viewpoint...as it seems very self destructive.  He's basically a lot like Michael Quinn, except I think Quinn actually (and ironically) had a better testimony overall (Quinn ironically also, at times till defends the church...not that I really think he is a friend of the church either)...while Bushman hasn't really kept it a secret that he does not believe in the Church (as it was, though he will say he believes in his re-writing of the prophet which in many cases slanders the prophet Joseph) but gives soft words of reconciliation when confronted with his own bias against it.  He says he has a belief in Jesus Christ (I can believe that) and from that is where his testimony stems...but he has at times been quite hostile about the life of Joseph Smith.  He has written too many things that were arguing points of the anti-Mormons as his official stance on things to really be seen as someone who accepted Josephs final accounts of the First Vision or many other areas which Joseph talked about later in life.  In otherwords, he has basically out and out called Joseph Smith a liar in his writings. 

Many take his PR and other voice of reconciliation as accepting he has a testimony, but his writings and outward speeches not directed towards members indicate to me...this is someone that is being VERY effective at trying to destroy the church.

From a PR point...what he's done towards the Prophet Joseph and the church history in general would be a disaster in my opinion.  He's is at the very point of the spear in the revisionist tactics today from what I've read of his.

As I said, in regards to secular history, he is VERY good and very solid.  In fact, his written histories on Joseph are probably some of the best...however...secular history does NOT accept that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet nor that his point of view with his later words of what happened are actually true.  Instead, secular history says he was biased and perhaps trying to do something with nefarious means and thus we must also look at the opposite opinions of the day and accept their veracity...sometimes over Josephs because they have more witnesses that we know of and more items.  This is how Bushman has gotten away with the claims of Joseph practicing folk magic and was a treasure hunter that...well...you can read Bushman's works for more on that...no need for me to profligate the anti-Mormon accusations that Bushman appears to accept.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2020 at 9:09 AM, tesuji said:

Here's a great presentation at a recent FairMormon conference that I think makes the point even better than my original post:

I'm still wondering what your original point was.  I asked you before to clarify.  But you appear afraid to do so.  I can only guess that it is because you believe that if your point were clarified, then it would be revealed for heresy.

But you can go ahead and hide behind a lot of other people's words that cover a variety of topics and make a variety of statements on each topic never really saying what your original point was anyway.

To help others, I offer the following five points:

  • Is the person claiming to be acting within the bounds of his or her respective stewardship? 
  • Is the person worthy to teach such knowledge?
  • Is the communication in harmony with the standard works and teachings of the prophets?
  • Does the communication edify or instruct?
  • Does the communication build a person’s faith and strengthen commitment?

Applying these to this thread.

  • On a forum such as this, # cannot really be a consideration since it is informal and we understand that it is mostly personal interpretation (at least to a significant degree).  We should take some time and energy to base our points upon those who ARE in authority to declare gospel truths.
  • We have no way of knowing if anyone on the other end of a computer is worthy.  We can only judge the declarations made.
  • I think it is safe to say that any thread whose primary purpose is to tell us that the teachings of the prophets are flawed is not a communication that is in harmony with the teachngs of the prophets.
  • While not claiming to be "revelation", it is claiming to shed light on heretofore, unknown thought.  I see no such unknown thought.  I only see a plea to deny the words of the prophets.
  • I see nothing in the OP to build a person's faith or strengthen commitment.  Instead, I see the opposite.
Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple last things, just published this week by Ben Spackman on his blog.


Interpreting Scripture, History, Science, and Creation: A Free Course by Me!
A course syllabus

https://benspackman.com/2020/05/04/interpreting-scripture-history-science-and-creation-a-free-course-by-me/


Also, Ben Spackman explains how he teaches Genesis as a church Institute teacher:

Teaching Genesis at Institute
https://benspackman.com/2020/05/04/teaching-genesis-at-institute/


This is all great stuff. I highly recommend them, if you feel that simplistic explanations are no longer enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, tesuji said:

This is all great stuff. I highly recommend them, if you feel that simplistic explanations are no longer enough.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't complex. Communication from the Holy Ghost isn't complex either. It is men who choose to muddy the waters with their so called "intellect". Simplistic explanations are just right for me thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scottyg said:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't complex. Communication from the Holy Ghost isn't complex either. It is men who choose to muddy the waters with their so called "intellect". Simplistic explanations are just right for me thank you very much.

That’s a valid point, but I would suggest that the gospel is not the scriptures.  The scriptures are not the gospel.  

The scriptures contain the Gospel (Heck, 1 Cor 15:3-4 can be argued to contain “the gospel” in two verses); but they are also ancient documents that contain and/or allude to a lot of other stuff.

Spackman’s work maybe doesn’t make my testimony “bigger” or “stronger”, as we typically deploy those terms.  But my own experience is that understanding the scriptures in their literary/historical context, does tend to make my testimony a little deeper or richer; and speaking as a history nerd—that has value to me.  Anyone else’s mileage, of course, may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s a valid point, but I would suggest that the gospel is not the scriptures.  The scriptures are not the gospel.  

The scriptures contain the Gospel (Heck, 1 Cor 15:3-4 can be argued to contain “the gospel” in two verses); but they are also ancient documents that contain and/or allude to a lot of other stuff.

Spackman’s work maybe doesn’t make my testimony “bigger” or “stronger”, as we typically deploy those terms.  But my own experience is that understanding the scriptures in their literary/historical context, does tend to make my testimony a little deeper or richer; and speaking as a history nerd—that has value to me.  Anyone else’s mileage, of course, may vary.

I didn't say anything about the scriptures. I agree with your comment though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tesuji said:

A couple last things, just published this week by Ben Spackman on his blog.


Interpreting Scripture, History, Science, and Creation: A Free Course by Me!
A course syllabus

https://benspackman.com/2020/05/04/interpreting-scripture-history-science-and-creation-a-free-course-by-me/


Also, Ben Spackman explains how he teaches Genesis as a church Institute teacher:

Teaching Genesis at Institute
https://benspackman.com/2020/05/04/teaching-genesis-at-institute/


This is all great stuff. I highly recommend them, if you feel that simplistic explanations are no longer enough.

I would say "great stuff" is definitely a personal interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I would say "great stuff" is definitely a personal interpretation.

Indeed. Spackman appears to be greatly misguided in his entire teaching approach, which appears to be an attempt to disabuse the Saints of the notion of Creationism. Obviously, Latter-day Saints are not "Creationists" in the popular meaning of the word, though even more obviously we are "Creationists" is the sense that we believe in a Creator.

As for the specifics regarding the modern scientific reliability of the Genesis narrative...well, at the risk of putting too fine a point on the matter, that whole question is simply stupid. The prophets have rarely, perhaps never, even seen fit to address the question. Why not? Because it's a stupid question. Genesis aims to teach us of our relationship to God, not of the mechanics of creation as we think about things in the 21st century.

People can believe whatever they want. Ben Spackman's earnest efforts to save them from their own scientific ignorance is useless at best, and probably much worse than useless. Gospel Doctrine class is or should be a discussion of gospel doctrine, not a science primer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share