Richard Bushman says, "The Book of Mormon is Right."

Here’s a great article that was published in the Salt Lake Tribune a little over a month ago: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/. I’d be interested in hearing everybody’s opinions of it. I personally really liked it. I’m not goint to actually start a discussion on it until a few people have read it and have something to contribute.

No offense to your good self, but I didn’t like the paywall. I only got as far as the bit where he talked about his childhood then it blocked my view. The press is really commiting slow suicide these days. I don’t visit SLT to justify a sub.

I have a little trick to get past paywalls but it may have to take a few minutes. 🤫

A few thoughts as I read this.

It was just the word that came to me rather than “true.” When I read the book, I believed those things were happening. I could picture them happening. They seemed very real to me. So I’ve just always said it was right

I’m not sure I get this. There are lots of novels and movies and such that this could apply to, but people don’t take them as holy scripture.

In ancient times, truth was connected to goodness — truth was what led you to a good life.

I like this idea as it applies to religion. Unfortunately I see the church spending a lot of time arguing literal truth of the history and teachings and I wish they would focus more on just living a good life.

It’s like saying, “I’m not going to listen to music or to let myself be moved by romantic feelings.” You’re cutting off part of yourself and your life if you say that’s just beyond human capacity

I agree that the human experience cannot be limited to just the rational. I also think that some beliefs can be helpful to humans even if they are not objectively true. For example your spouse or significant other may not objectively be the most wonderful and beautiful person in the world, but they are to you. Which is a much more helpful belief than “eh, I guess I just married someone kind of average.” And there is value in religious teachings even if they are not objectively true. But again, I think the church focuses too much on trying to argue the literal and misses the chance to explore the other aspects of the doctrine.

In fact I think the church actively tries to fight figurative interpretations by arguing the Book of Mormon is either literally true and translated by a prophet of God or a massive fraud. The whole “keystone of our religion” argument. And then they have to defend it as literally true because they’ve already eliminated the option for people who want to find value in it without believing it as literal truth.

I think one thing that jumped out to me was this paragraph (and the parts I’ve bolded, in particular):

“The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text. That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.”

I’ve honestly never heard of any “faithful church scholars” who have found 19th-century material in the text. And all of the LDS scholars I’ve ever heard comment on the authenticity of The Book of Mormon, just emphasize that it’s “clearly” an ancient record. If it really does have all these 19th century elements in it, I find it intriguing that this doesn’t seem to bother Bushman in the slightest.

Now I’ve only read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover once — back about 100 years ago when I was in 9th grade seminary. It was honestly all I could do to get through it, and when people talk about how much they love it, I honestly can’t help but wonder if they’re really serious or are just saying that to impress. Being told that there’s so much in it that comes right out of the 19th century… well, that would make me even less likely to find it compelling (from a historical account anyway) than I always have.

Bushman is probably the only LDS scholar I’ve ever heard that doesn’t say “The Book of Mormon is true.” And yet he can get away with having doubts that admitting to would keep me out of the temple. I wonder how he does it.

He talks about the gold plates as “an imaginary object,” and says, “They’re one of our great fantasies, one of the most fabulous and unbelievable parts of our history.” I mean how do you get to say that and end up being held in such high regard by Mormons in general and even by the Church’s leadership?

I also like how he says, “We can see how Mormonism looks from a global view. And as soon as we do that, then the way we treat women becomes problematic in terms of the way the educated world in general is looking upon women and race and LGBTQ issues and so on. We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large.” The General Authorities don’t seem to think that they world’s view of us is problematic at all. I found his admission that it is to be kind of refreshing.

Please note there is another thread about this here: https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945” class=”bbcode_url”>https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945

Because it’s a little difficult to combine them at this point we’ll leave both.

Please note there is another thread about this here: https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945” class=”bbcode_url”>https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945

Because it’s a little difficult to combine them at this point we’ll leave both.

I’m sorry! I must have missed that! It’s okay with me if this thread is closed. I didn’t mean to duplicate another one.

Please note there is another thread about this here: https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945” class=”bbcode_url”>https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945

Because it’s a little difficult to combine them at this point we’ll leave both.

I’m sorry! I must have missed that! It’s okay with me if this thread is closed. I didn’t mean to duplicate another one.

It’s perfectly OK, there’s good stuff in both. That’s what would have made it hard to combine, the technology of combining is easy.

You can hold a temple recommend and still feel rejected by your community.

Agreed. Bushman has some status as a respected scholar which helps. But I bet he has those who judge him in his ward. Every ward is a little different, but some of how people react has more to do with how something is presented. Bushman clearly presents from a believing point of view, and can use words such as “right” without the rank and file really noticing. We had testimony meeting today – I can only remember what one of them said (and that only because while I agree with her I think most people think differently). I don’t remember what last week’s talks were about. I also don’t recall any of the talks from last GC. I don’t think I’m all that atypical (but I could be wrong). People just don’t notice much unless it’s really in your face. Of course that said, I have had my share of “shout downs” (not literally) over the years. I’ve just learned to be careful with what I say and how I say it and to make sure I have an ally or two around, but even then it can happen. I suppose part of me doesn’t miss going to church because I don’t fully fit in anyway.