Bushman comments on LDS narrative of its history

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The underground I think you speak of is New Order Mormons. You should be glad they exist, they aren't anti per say, like the exmormonreddit usually. They may even be closer to Staylds.com. One day we may be glad so many try to make the church work for them. 

NOM and MormonStories were my "safe landing" when my shelf broke.  They kept me in the church those first few years while I figured things out.

[rockpond]

On 7/17/2016 at 2:43 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no orthodoxy in Mormonism because there is only orthopraxy.  Anyhow, Mormonism is a humanistic and universalist religion, even though most people don't realize it.

I think the religion that Joseph Smith founded fit that description.  But I don't see Mormonism of today fitting what you've described here.  At all.

Although, I do believe that Mormonisms continued growth will rely on us returning to that humanistic/universalist tradition.

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't really understand the uproar. Bushman essentially said the "dominant narrative" (Which I take as the restoration narrative I grew up with) isn't correct. The church seems to agree as evidenced by the essays, seer stone article in the ensign etc.

Bushman also said it would be hard for the older generation which makes sense. The longer a person has been enmeshed with 1 narrative, the harder it will be to change that. Seems like a reasonable statement.

It seems clear that the "dominant" more traditional narrative is in the process of changing. But as I saw at church yesterday, those changes will be hard for many to handle.

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't really understand the uproar. Bushman essentially said the "dominant narrative" (Which I take as the restoration narrative I grew up with) isn't correct. The church seems to agree as evidenced by the essays, seer stone article in the ensign etc.

Bushman also said it would be hard for the older generation which makes sense. The longer a person has been enmeshed with 1 narrative, the harder it will be to change that. Seems like a reasonable statement.

It seems clear that the "dominant" more traditional narrative is in the process of changing. But as I saw at church yesterday, those changes will be hard for many to handle.

I think this is probably a good and balanced explanation for what Richard Bushman had in mind.

The shock value was interjected by his use of the words "The dominant narrative isn't true."  If he had said "isn't correct," as you put it, I don't think it would have gotten nearly the response it has.

But using the words, "isn't true," makes it sound like an anti-testimony.

[consiglieri]

 

Quote

  I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.

Hearing Richard Bushman say this reminds me of Joseph Smith's 1844 claim he had always taught the Godhead consisted of three separate and distinct beings.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't really understand the uproar. Bushman essentially said the "dominant narrative" (Which I take as the restoration narrative I grew up with) isn't correct. The church seems to agree as evidenced by the essays, seer stone article in the ensign etc.

Bushman also said it would be hard for the older generation which makes sense. The longer a person has been enmeshed with 1 narrative, the harder it will be to change that. Seems like a reasonable statement.

It seems clear that the "dominant" more traditional narrative is in the process of changing. But as I saw at church yesterday, those changes will be hard for many to handle.

I agree.

The changes will be tough for some to accept.  I think that's why the Brethren are taking the approach that we're seeing now:  Elder Maynes' discussion of the First Vision accounts was in a YSA devotional (not, for example, General Conference).  Elder Ballard told CES to "inoculate" the youth (rather than re-educating the older generation).  It seems that, while they may not be saying it publicly, they would agree with Bushman.  I'm speculating, but I'd guess that they Brethren would prefer not to "reconstruct" for the older generation because it could create too many problems.  But they likely recognize that the upcoming generation won't "stay" under the current narrative.

[ttribe]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As your so-called "NuOrder Mormonism" (tm) is not relevant enough to Mormonism proper to merit my notice, I'm not going to shed any tears about having been "left out of ... this underground."

Matthew 18:12

Luke 15:4

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The underground I think you speak of is New Order Mormons. You should be glad they exist, they aren't anti per say, like the exmormonreddit usually. They may even be closer to Staylds.com. One day we may be glad so many try to make the church work for them. 

I agree.  These are people who struggle but try so hard to remain and hold dear the fundamentals of the gospel.  They really try hard.  Some of the changes they would like to see are happening now..it is not a bad thing. 

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, I agree.  I was quite concerned about the fundamentalism and literalism in the church when I first joined now almost 40 years ago, when there were so many other ways of presenting the gospel available.   It had to change to keep up with a more sophisticated notion of religious truth or it could have been lost yet again to mankind- now I think we actually have a chance of becoming the "stone cut without hands".

If we could communicate with a more secular audience which is now more sophisticated in these matters than church theology is, there is no end to what the church could become.   We have it all- we just need to, as Bushman says, "change the narrative", not eliminating anything, but presenting it all in a new way, more coherently, in tune with contemporary theology.

 well they might start with stopping trying to force an incorrect narrative which they have been shown is incorrect. Perhaps that is a reason why growth has stagnated. The spirit will not be forced.

There is no "we" in "stone." The chief cornerstone is not a "we" nor was Peter. Mountains of testimony and revelation are "we."

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.

The changes will be tough for some to accept.  I think that's why the Brethren are taking the approach that we're seeing now:  Elder Maynes' discussion of the First Vision accounts was in a YSA devotional (not, for example, General Conference).  Elder Ballard told CES to "inoculate" the youth (rather than re-educating the older generation).  It seems that, while they may not be saying it publicly, they would agree with Bushman.  I'm speculating, but I'd guess that they Brethren would prefer not to "reconstruct" for the older generation because it could create too many problems.  But they likely recognize that the upcoming generation won't "stay" under the current narrative.

I had the experience yesterday of trying to refute racist claims of black curses, Lamanite skin being turned white as their priesthood curse was lifted, and fence sitting, in gospel doctrine class. I was very calm in explaining that the church has disavowed past racist theories and cited the race and the priesthood essay. You would have thought I was quoting from the Godmakers. The response was extremely defensive. They didn't believe my citation or that the essay could be found on LDS org.

I mention this because it's an illustration of how some people would rather stick with the old, faulty narrative they're familiar with, rather than challenge their paradigm of gospel certainty for something more accurate. I struggle with this in my family as well. Some in the older generation are very upset that the modern prophet/apostles are disavowing and calling into question statement of past prophets/apostles. My father is adamant that the racist theories of the past are the true doctrine and is offended that I would choose to side with the modern apostles on this one. He can't quite grasp that he is rejecting the words of a prophet while simultaneously accusing me of doing the same thing.

This is the problem with the changing paradigm. The inconsistencies create disunity, confusion, and anger.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had the experience yesterday of trying to refute racist claims of black curses, Lamanite skin being turned white as their priesthood curse was lifted, and fence sitting, in gospel doctrine class. I was very calm in explaining that the church has disavowed past racist theories and cited the race and the priesthood essay. You would have thought I was quoting from the Godmakers. The response was extremely defensive. They didn't believe my citation or that the essay could be found on LDS org.

I mention this because it's an illustration of how some people would rather stick with the old, faulty narrative they're familiar with, rather than challenge their paradigm of gospel certainty for something more accurate. I struggle with this in my family as well. Some in the older generation are very upset that the modern prophet/apostles are disavowing and calling into question statement of past prophets/apostles. My father is adamant that the racist theories of the past are the true doctrine and is offended that I would choose to side with the modern apostles on this one. He can't quite grasp that he is rejecting the words of a prophet while simultaneously accusing me of doing the same thing.

This is the problem with the changing paradigm. The inconsistencies create disunity, confusion, and anger.

Yes... my bishop who I love and revere and who is a wonderful humble, spiritual leader of our ward confided in me that he believes the "Race and the Priesthood" disavowal to be something the Church simply had to do as a result of the world's demands for political correctness.  He still believes that the reasons given for the ban (lack of valiance in the pre-mortal life) are the truth and are considered true by the Brethren.

So yes, the paradigm will be tough to change.

[USU78]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, I agree.  I was quite concerned about the fundamentalism and literalism in the church when I first joined now almost 40 years ago, when there were so many other ways of presenting the gospel available.   It had to change to keep up with a more sophisticated notion of religious truth or it could have been lost yet again to mankind- now I think we actually have a chance of becoming the "stone cut without hands".

If we could communicate with a more secular audience which is now more sophisticated in these matters than church theology is, there is no end to what the church could become.   We have it all- we just need to, as Bushman says, "change the narrative", not eliminating anything, but presenting it all in a new way, more coherently, in tune with contemporary theology.

I'm not sure "change the narrative" really sez what he meant.  Certainly there's no challenge to the foundational truths every Mormon, to be a believing Mormon, accepts:  G-d exists; the Master exists; both are charged with a self-appointed duty to make loving bond pairs with each human that chooses to accept ("Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee"); JSJr had his theophany; and a very few other things that I won't take the time to list here.  Accordingly, I think "refine the narrative" or "streamline the narrative" or perhaps "simplify the narrative," getting rid of all that socioreligioAmerican stuff that the boobirds/bigots make so much hay out of.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm not sure "change the narrative" really sez what he meant.  Certainly there's no challenge to the foundational truths every Mormon, to be a believing Mormon, accepts:  G-d exists; the Master exists; both are charged with a self-appointed duty to make loving bond pairs with each human that chooses to accept ("Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee"); JSJr had his theophany; and a very few other things that I won't take the time to list here.  Accordingly, I think "refine the narrative" or "streamline the narrative" or perhaps "simplify the narrative," getting rid of all that socioreligioAmerican stuff that the boobirds/bigots make so much hay out of.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Patriarch Bushman used the word "reconstruct".  And I think that "reconstruct the narrative" (rather than change) fits with what you are describing here.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The underground I think you speak of is New Order Mormons. You should be glad they exist, they aren't anti per say, like the exmormonreddit usually. They may even be closer to Staylds.com. One day we may be glad so many try to make the church work for them. 

Making the Church work for them is one thing. Trying perniciously to undermine the existing structure and to alter it to suit themselves (the implied connotation with a word like "underground") is quite another. 

And bear in mind it was salgare, not I, who first used that term in this conversation. 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Patriarch Bushman used the word "reconstruct".  And I think that "reconstruct the narrative" (rather than change) fits with what you are describing here.

If I understand procedure correctly, using "Patriarch" as a title with someone's name is discouraged in the Church these days. 

I respect and honor Professor Bushman's academic credentials and professional achievements, but calling him "Patriarch Bushman" in this context strikes me as a rather smarmy attempt to boost those credentials with ecclesiastical stature that doesn't really apply in this instance and of which I'm not entirely sure he himself would approve. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I understand procedure correctly, using "Patriarch" as a title with someone's name is discouraged in the Church these days. 

I respect and honor Professor Bushman's academic credentials and professional achievements, but calling him "Patriarch Bushman" in this context strikes me as a rather smarmy attempt to boost those credentials with ecclesiastical stature that doesn't really apply in this instance and of which I'm not entirely sure he himself would approve. 

Please consider not trying put a negative spin on everything I say.  I assure you that it was NOT a "smarmy attempt" at anything.  I was simply trying to use the appropriate title out of respect.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Matthew 18:12

Luke 15:4

The relevance of these passages to my having been "left out of the underground," and my lack of despair about having been so excluded, is not self-evident. 

But I wonder what you think "the underground" means in this context. Again, it is salgare, not I, who used that term. 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I understand procedure correctly, using "Patriarch" as a title with someone's name is discouraged in the Church these days. 

I respect and honor Professor Bushman's academic credentials and professional achievements, but calling him "Patriarch Bushman" in this context strikes me as a rather smarmy attempt to boost those credentials with ecclesiastical stature that doesn't really apply in this instance and of which I'm not entirely sure he himself would approve. 

Did not know that was discouraged nowadays. As long as I can remember, people referred to Patriarch Smith or Patriarch Jones. The church's presiding patriarch was traditionally called "Elder." Any idea when this change came about? Just curious.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Please consider not trying put a negative spin on everything I say.  I assure you that it was NOT a "smarmy attempt" at anything.  I was simply trying to use the appropriate title out of respect.

I think the appropriate title in this instance would be Professor or Doctor, or if you want to bring Mormon collegiality into it, simply Brother. 

[jkwilliams]

Never mind. Wrong thread.

Edited July 18, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Did not know that was discouraged nowadays. As long as I can remember, people referred to Patriarch Smith or Patriarch Jones. The church's presiding patriarch was traditionally called "Elder." Any idea when this change came about? Just curious.

I think it's fairly new. I myself learned of it not too long ago. I don't remember the setting now. I can try to document it, but it may take some time, so bear with me. 

I don't think it ever was standard to refer to someone outside one's own stake boundaries a "Patriarch" so-and-so. 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I saw this last week and thought, Yeah...I thought that was obvious--"I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. "

I saw a few people get all worked up about it last week and couldn't figure out why.  I thought this was decided a long time ago.  I'm not saying the Church is sending an additional message because it has taken a very slow path in addressing this need to reconstruct.  But it has been a real slow effort.  Indeed, the dominant narrative is still so strong because those who propose it, each week in nearly each building, don't have the message that what they were taught concerning the Church narrative is no longer sustainable.  Older people and younger people seem to struggle at a pretty equal rate if you ask me, unless we mean by younger people to be kids. 

[James Tunney]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the appropriate title in this instance would be Professor or Doctor, or if you want to bring Mormon collegiality into it, simply Brother. 

Is there some official pronouncement or at least some general conference talk that says you can't call a patriarch patriarch? The members call the patriarch in my stake by the title patriarch.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Is there some official pronouncement or at least some general conference talk that says you can't call a patriarch patriarch? The members call the patriarch in my stake by the title patriarch.

I'll try to find something.

 

[ttribe]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The relevance of these passages to my having been "left out of the underground," and my lack of despair about having been so excluded, is not self-evident. 

But I wonder what you think "the underground" means in this context. Again, it is salgare, not I, who used that term. 

Clearly, it relates to this portion of your post:

As your so-called "NuOrder Mormonism" (tm) is

not relevant enough to Mormonism proper to merit my notice...

IOW, those people don't matter.