Bushman comments on LDS narrative of its history

[Teancum]

Has anyone seen this:

At the 57 minute mark, Bushman says the church must change because the narrative is not true. He says this will the the hardest for older members to accept.

 

thoughts?

Edited July 16, 2016 by Teancum

[oremites]

Sorry I didn't watch the whole video, but what exactly about the narrative is not true?  Joseph Smith didn't exist?  Pioneers didn't cross the plains pulling handcarts? 

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, oremites said:

Sorry I didn't watch the whole video, but what exactly about the narrative is not true?  Joseph Smith didn't exist?  Pioneers didn't cross the plains pulling handcarts? 

Scroll to the 57 minute mark.

[Duncan]

I am no expert on Bushman but I see him saying that the narrative the church has been saying has to change and that change will be hardest for the more entrenched members, not him saying he isn't a believer anymore

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am no expert on Bushman but I see him saying that the narrative the church has been saying has to change and that change will be hardest for the more entrenched members, not him saying he isn't a believer anymore

Kinda short on details, but then I didn't listen to the first hour.

[UtahTexan]

What I see him saying is that the original narrative has to change because of the information we have.  Having read his books, I assume he is talking about things like the original story of Joseph dictating with a cloth between he and his scribe.  That likely did not happen.

There is nothing earth-shattering in this.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Scroll to the 57 minute mark.

The power of narrative.

Pragmatism.  Alma 32.

Truth is what works in your life.  I have been saying that forever.

Living with ambiguity is indeed the issue.  Ongoing life path- THAT is the truth

Edited July 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, oremites said:

Sorry I didn't watch the whole video, but what exactly about the narrative is not true?  Joseph Smith didn't exist?  Pioneers didn't cross the plains pulling handcarts? 

"Narrative" isn't the story or history.  It's how the stories and history are strung together and presented with an overall theme.  So it could be a problem with the stories, or it could be a problem with the way they are strung together and presented, or it could be the overall theme.  Unless he is more specific, we'll never know exactly what he meant.

[USU78]

Herr Professor Doktor Peterson has obtained permission from Dr Bushman to republish his own words, which Dan has done here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/richard-bushman-and-the-fundamental-claims-of-mormonism.html

In short, "reconstructed narrative" don't mean what some are trying to make it mean.

[smac97]

I only listen to about 15 minutes or so. I think he is using the word "narrative" in a way that some people might construe as problematic, but I don't think he intends it that way ( I may be wrong, so I will try to get to listening to the rest of it later).  That is to say, there is a story about the restored gospel. What actually happened. God exists and has certain characteristics and attributes. Jesus Christ is his son and our Redeemer. We are his Spirit children. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. An angel appeared to Joseph Smith. An angel directed him to the Golden Plates. He translated those plates through Divine means.  He was given the priesthood.  He organized the Church, which today presents itself as having exclusive stick truth claims and authority. This is the "story."  

The "narrative" pertains to how that "story" is told and communicated, bother bother to each other and to those outside our faith. Which parts are emphasized. Which parts are not.  Which points are important, and which points are not.  Which points are core to our beliefs, and which points are open to differing interpretations and perspectives.

For example, we tend to lionize and venerate prophets and apostles.  And yet we also teach that they have weaknesses and make mistakes. They are not infallible.  To what extent do we discuss and evaluate these weaknesses/mistakes?  How big a part do these weaknesses and mistakes play in the narrative?  How much emphasis is too much?

What about the controversial aspects of LDS history? The Mountain Meadows Massacre. The priesthood restriction. Polygamy. How big a part in the "narrative" should we give to these aspects of the gospel story?

What about contemporary controversies? Female ordination. Treatment of same-sex marriage specifically and people with same-sex attraction generally. Disclosure of church finances.  How do these fit into the narrative? How big a part of the narrative are they? 

What about doctrinal disputes?  Perhaps these above all of the above issues are going to be the most difficult to address by the church and in the church.  Can someone who rejects the Book of Mormon as being a record of actual people and actual events, and who instead views it as a piece of "inspired fiction," teach a Sunday School class about the Book of Mormon?  Hold a temple recommend? He called to a prominent leadership position in a ward or stake?  What about someone who categorically rejects Elder Nelson's comments earlier this year pertaining to the origins of the recent changes to the church handbook pertaining to being in a same-sex marriage being a form of apostasy?  Is that "okay?"  What about someone who categorically reject any iteration of Church-sanctiones polygamy being authorized/ordained of God?  Is that "okay?"

I think what a lot of this comes down to is nuance and complexity and details.  Advances in technology, communications, scholarship, and - perhaps most importantly - the sheer amount of data we have  about  the "story" of the Gospel have pretty much required us to go back to the drawing board as far as the gospel narrative.

I do not think Bro. Bushmen intends to suggest that the underlying "story" needs to be abandoned, at least not in a big picture kind of way.  I don't think he is suggesting that we revisit the idea that God lives, or that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or that they appeared to Joseph Smith, or that the gold plates actually exist, and so on.  At one point in the video for the Bushmen speak to someone off camera who voices skepticism about the Book of Mormon and juxtaposes that skepticism with his (Bro. Bushman's) continuing belief that there were, in fact, gold plates.  In another part he remarks how people like Elder Packer seemed to want to protect little old grandmothers in Sanpete County, but that the narrative intended to protect these grandmothers is resulting in the loss of their grandsons.

So I think brother Bushman is suggesting that the narrative about the gold plates needs to be told in a more complex and more nuanced way.  Take, for example, the book "Truth Restored" written by Gordon B Hinckley long before he became the president of the church, but which is now used rather frequently in the church.  It is a fairly well written overview of the history of the church.  But it was originally written in 1947, and it is only about 150 pages long.  It discusses the gospel in broad strokes and basic terms.  70 years later, however, we have extraordinary amounts of information about the same materials discussed in this book.  I think what Brother Bushman is saying is that the little old grandmothers in Sanpete County have long been accustomed to the briefer and simpler narrative in books like this. And in Gospel Doctrine lessons like this.  And so on.  However, the grandsons of these grandmothers are probably not going to be satisfied with this simpler and briefer narrative approach.  

I think the Church is recognizing this. The Joseph Smith papers project to me strongly suggest that the church is trying, and in many ways succeeding, to keep Pace with the need to prevent a more detailed and complex narrative about the restored gospel, about church history, and about troubling and difficult parts of these things. The Joseph Smith Papers project. The Gospel Topics essays.  Royal Skousen's critical text of the Book of Mormon.  Brant Gardner's "Second Witness" series.  To me, these are all wonderful developments, and I think indicate that the narrative is, in fact, changing to accommodate added information, scholarship, and broader perspectives about the Gospel "story" then were previously available to and openly discussed the Saints.

I can't speak to the prototypical "grandmother from Sanpete County"-type concern about the changing "narrative" of the Restored Gospel.  To be honest, I cannot think of a recent concern expressed by any of the church members with whom I interact that would conform to this prototype. Rather comma my experience has gone quite the other way.  I think many members of the Church, at least most that I know personally, are either sanguine/indifferent or outright excited about new information and new developments and nuanced approaches to parts of the Gospel "story" that were previously "narrated" in more simplistic terms.

Thanks, 

-Smac

[juliann]

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/richard-bushman-and-the-fundamental-claims-of-mormonism.html

Thanks for coming to my rescue Dan.  I had begun to pick up indications of these exchanges a few days ago.  I have been using the phrase “reconstruct the narrative” in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.  The Joseph Smith Papers offer a reconstructed narrative, so do some of the “Gospel Topics” essays.  The short First Vision film in the Church Museum of History mentions six accounts of Joseph’s experience and draws on all of them.  That is all reconstructing the narrative.  I got the phrase from a young woman who reported that she and her husband had both been through faith crises.  She had come back; he had remained alienated.  But both of them had to reconstruct the narrative.  We have to include, for example, the fact that that the first words to Joseph in the First Vision were:  “Your sins are forgiven.”  That makes us look again at his life and realize how important a part forgiveness played.  Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story.  A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display.  That would not have happened even five years ago.  The list goes on and on.

 

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.  I still believe in gold plates.  I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration.  I think he was sincere in saying he saw God.  The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

 

If anyone has questions about what I believe, I would be happy to hear from him or her.  I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.

[Five Solas]

Sounds like Bushman is now eager to walk it back.  Rather a different thing to allege the narrative, i.e., the story is "not true" vs. the above quote wherein it's just about some additional disclosures and points of emphasis.

I wonder what happened... 

;0)

--Erik

[Calm]

Right.  Don't take his word for what he meant, insist you know better and he is changing his mind.

[Five Solas]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right.  Don't take his word for what he meant, insist you know better and he is changing his mind.

I'm just reading the words, Calm, and they are not the same. 

--Erik

[Calm]

He says the "dominant narrative" is not true and his letter clarifies what he means by that.  The Church itself has been working on changing the dominant narrative through the Essays and JSP, even church art imo.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'm just reading the words, Calm, and they are not the same. 

--Erik

He is answering a question off the cuff. He follows what he says about changing the dominant narrative with saying that is what the Church is doing.  How is what the church is doing problematic?

[Calm]

I started watching at the 50 minute mark and the questions and answers are more or less on the same theme.  If you take his comment in that greater context and don't isolate it on its own and then substitute your own interpretation for his words, I think it is quite clear what he means and it is completely consistent with what he says in the letter.

[Calm]

FS, did you watch the video or just assume that Teancum provided enough information to judge?

[UtahTexan]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

FS, did you watch the video or just assume that Teancum provided enough information to judge?

Trust me, not enough evidence evidence was provided.  Just enough for the agenda....

[Calm]

I don't need totrust you, I saw the video section myself.  And I have read thousands of posts from Teancum for almost 15 years now here and elsewhere, so I believe I can understand the context that he writes relatively well.

I don't think Teancum had an agenda save to explore the comment in its full context, he provided the video and made it easy to watch the relevant section.

Assumptions such as yours seem to me to lead to interpretations that are less than accurate.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Calm

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

He says the "dominant narrative" is not true and his letter clarifies what he means by that.  The Church itself has been working on changing the dominant narrative through the Essays and JSP, even church art imo.

I think our church has to work on other stuff first.

1.Our church needs to explain (without ambiguous statements) how we can detect the Holy Ghost and priesthood powers.  

2. Our church needs to stay out of politics .

3. Our church needs to disclose its financial information like many other churches do 

4.  Our church needs to be more friendly to Science. 

5. Finally, our church needs to do more to stop bullying 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study 

In my opinion History is not very important. 

 

Edited July 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Buckeye]

I don't have much to say about the OP but the church is changing the narrative. I visited the new priesthood restoration site in harmony PA last week. Joseph translated much of the BOM there. As part of the tour there is an upside down hat prominently place on the table where the translation process is discussed to explain and show that a hat was used. I was pleasantly surprised. 

Edited July 17, 2016 by Buckeye

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

....................................................................... 

I think the Church is recognizing this. The Joseph Smith papers project to me strongly suggest that the church is trying, and in many ways succeeding, to keep Pace with the need to prevent a more detailed and complex narrative about the restored gospel, about church history, and about troubling and difficult parts of these things. The Joseph Smith Papers project. The Gospel Topics essays.  Royal Skousen's critical text of the Book of Mormon.  Brant Gardner's "Second Witness" series.  To me, these are all wonderful developments, and I think indicate that the narrative is, in fact, changing to accommodate added information, scholarship, and broader perspectives about the Gospel "story" then were previously available to and openly discussed the Saints.

I can't speak to the prototypical "grandmother from Sanpete County"-type concern about the changing "narrative" of the Restored Gospel.  To be honest, I cannot think of a recent concern expressed by any of the church members with whom I interact that would conform to this prototype. Rather comma my experience has gone quite the other way.  I think many members of the Church, at least most that I know personally, are either sanguine/indifferent or outright excited about new information and new developments and nuanced approaches to parts of the Gospel "story" that were previously "narrated" in more simplistic terms.

Thanks, 

-Smac

You went on at great length, as usual, Spencer, but may have been justified this time.  A balanced assessment.

By the way, you apparently meant "present" in the above.

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

He is answering a question off the cuff. He follows what he says about changing the dominant narrative with saying that is what the Church is doing.  How is what the church is doing problematic?

I disagree.  It's a thoughtful question - and Bushman's response is likewise thoughtful.  I don't think you can dismiss it as "off the cuff"--he goes further and calls the "orthodox" (and the questioner is *very* clear what is meant by orthodox) narrative unsustainable.  Here's a quick version of it:

Obviously viewers/readers will need to decide for themselves.  Bushman's original words are fraught with implication.  And in my humble opinion, he walks at least some of it back in his exchange with Daniel C. Peterson. 

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Has anyone seen this:
...........................................

, Bushman says the church must change because the narrative is not true. He says this will the the hardest for older members to accept.

thoughts?

He doesn't speak of the narrative, Teancum, he speaks of the "dominant narrative," and that makes all the difference.  One hears a great deal of criticism of the mythical and legendary narrative that naive, well-meaning people might tell (often on this board), but which is not based on adequate historical data.  Fawn Brodie got a great deal of mileage out of historical nonsense, while refusing a formal offer of access to the Church History Archives.  She had already modeled or tailored her critique of Joseph on the dominant, but false narrative, thus ignoring good historiograpy.  Unlike Brodie, Bushman is a professional historian with a lifetime of experience, and his work stands on its own.

Since my mother came from San Pete County, she was an authentic grandmother of the sort mentioned by Bushman.  Yet she had a master's degree and kept up with whatever publications BYU Studies, FARMS, and the Utah Historical Society put out -- and was the founding president of her California chapter of Daughters of the Utah Pioneers.  She loved real Mormon history.  It never made her flinch.  She was a woman of great faith, who went to the temple as often as possible, until her death at 94.