- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Years ago I had an institute teacher who defined a Prophet by three things. *A visionary.
*A book of scripture.
*And a following of people.
At the time I didn’t see how large and encompassing that definition could be. During institute he stuck to the Biblical and JS connection, but since then I can see how Mohammed, Martin Luther King, and others fit the bill. Joseph Smith does, too. I am with DJ on the idea that his vision, might have been just that a vision. As Ray says “not a visitation.” I also see the BofM, as inspired Allegory. To me so many lessons in it are true, the characters could be transposed through out time, but the personalities, the conflicts, and the comprehensions from them could all have been “inspired”. They become true as real people carry them out.
mom3 wrote:Years ago I had an institute teacher who defined a Prophet by three things.
*A visionary.
*A book of scripture.
*And a following of people.
At the time I didn’t see how large and encompassing that definition could be. During institute he stuck to the Biblical and JS connection, but since then I can see how Mohammed, Martin Luther King, and others fit the bill. Joseph Smith does, too. I am with DJ on the idea that his vision, might have been just that a vision. As Ray says “not a visitation.” I also see the BofM, as inspired Allegory. To me so many lessons in it are true, the characters could be transposed through out time, but the personalities, the conflicts, and the comprehensions from them could all have been “inspired”. They become true as real people carry them out.
The way I see it, none of the above rules out the possibility that Joseph Smith also could be untruthful. And I don’t really understand why this fireside with Bushman is at the center of a little firestorm now, but he wrote in RSR regarding priesthood restoration:
Quote:The late appearance of these accounts [of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John] raises the possibility of later fabrication.”
That’s a flat-out suggestion that the narrative is false in the simplest sense of the word. But it didn’t get any attention that I was aware of.
It doesn’t make the priesthood as we see it in our family false, but the story we tell about it needs to take in new facts.
RB really seems to be walking a tightrope sometimes. He seems to be doing it with ease at the present time. I can see at some point in time an over zealous SP calling him into a Church court to explain himself further.
Does anyone else see that happening?
Ann wrote:Bushman doesn’t agree with them, but he respects principled members who don’t believe in plates or Nephites. He accepts them as committed Mormons who want to build the kingdom. I wish there was more discussion of
that– making room for each other. Agree!
Minyan Man wrote:RB really seems to be walking a tightrope sometimes. He seems to be doing it with ease at the present time.
I can see at some point in time an over zealous SP calling him into a Church court to explain himself further.
Does anyone else see that happening?
I don;t see that happening unless he makes some radical change of direction.
DarkJedi wrote:Ann wrote:Bushman doesn’t agree with them, but he respects principled members who don’t believe in plates or Nephites. He accepts them as committed Mormons who want to build the kingdom. I wish there was more discussion of
that– making room for each other. Agree!
I second that.Ann wrote:… The way I see it, none of the above rules out the possibility that Joseph Smith also could be untruthful. And I don’t really understand why this fireside with Bushman is at the center of a little firestorm now, but he wrote in RSR regarding priesthood restoration:
Quote:The late appearance of these accounts [of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John] raises the possibility of later fabrication.”
That’s a flat-out suggestion that the narrative is false in the simplest sense of the word. But it didn’t get any attention that I was aware of.
It doesn’t make the priesthood as we see it in our family false, but the story we tell about it needs to take in new facts.
I am scratching my head on this also. I am starting to just assume it is cognitive bias in action – ignore the points that don’t line up with what you think.Of course Joseph was both truthful and untruthful. He was human. He also was different than normal, by all accounts, in multiple ways, and he was raised in an environment that accepted and honored mysticism and what would call classic spirituality (or “the supernatural”), including visions – so it would not be surprising if he had experiences in that realm that were real to him and, therefore, real in a very important way.
However, to be fair to Bushman, he didn’t say Joseph lied about the event about which he wrote; he said the lateness of the telling of it requires an acceptance of the possibility of fabrication. That is a balanced statement and shows a great level of understanding of history.
Minyan asked? Quote:RB really seems to be walking a tightrope sometimes. He seems to be doing it with ease at the present time.
I can see at some point in time an over zealous SP calling him into a Church court to explain himself further.
Does anyone else see that happening?
I don’t. He lives in New York, when he and his wife spoke in our area, I got the feeling that where they live and who they know in the church are totally fine with Bushman’s take on things. I don’t know if it’s because of who he is or because everyone in New York has a more liberal view. I think the Givens’ fall in the same position.
If it did happen though I imagine the person in the most awkward spot would be the SP. Bushman is a vital link in this tremulous bridge the church is working with. Elder Holland gave him a priesthood blessing before he began his RSR book tour. That alone gives Bushman the pass he would need to excuse himself from any SP questioning.
Either way Bushman gets off. Must be nice.
I think the key that is hard for many of us is that Bushman loves this church. Warts and all. He has for a long time. He has lived his unique way for so long, I don’t think he can understand why this flummoxes others. It’snot just the history. I suspect the Church doesn’t live up to his lofty expectations either, but the institution has literally been the heart beat of his life. It gave him purpose, direction, success, comfort, even peace. Polygamy doesn’t bug him, seers stones don’t bug him, Joseph’s flip flopping doesn’t either. It’s a peace I can’t fathom, but it’s genuine from him. And any firestorm doesn’t really rile him either. He goes along, says his peace, then visits the grand kids. It’s just another day in a contented life. I agree that Bushman isn’t saying, “Joseph lied about the priesthood restoration.” I don’t even like the word liedin talking about something so large, important and precious to me and so many others. But in his statement he created space. It would have been nice if the Patheos quote had included something like, “I believe. In appearances, plates, angels and Nephites, but Mormonism needs to make room for good people without the literal belief I have. They’re good people, and some of them are better saints than I am.” He’s said as much in other venues. mom3 wrote:I think the key that is hard for many of us is that Bushman loves this church. Warts and all. He has for a long time. He has lived his unique way for so long, I don’t think he can understand why this flummoxes others. It’snot just the history. I suspect the Church doesn’t live up to his lofty expectations either, but the institution has literally been the heart beat of his life. It gave him purpose, direction, success, comfort, even peace. Polygamy doesn’t bug him, seers stones don’t bug him, Joseph’s flip flopping doesn’t either. It’s a peace I can’t fathom, but it’s genuine from him. And any firestorm doesn’t really rile him either. He goes along, says his peace, then visits the grand kids. It’s just another day in a contented life.
I don’t know all that much about him, but your description leaves me scratching my head. Both of him and of the leaders around him. I don’t live in the Mormon corridor, but even where I live I don’t think he can say what he does and not have leaders adjust how they are sitting due to the mental (spiritual) discomfort his words create with them. My SP told bishoprics to acknowledge the essays only if questioned and then leave it at that and not say anything more to the person asking. I sure wish he and his wife or the Givens would have a trip around here sometime.LookingHard wrote:mom3 wrote:I think the key that is hard for many of us is that Bushman loves this church. Warts and all. He has for a long time. He has lived his unique way for so long, I don’t think he can understand why this flummoxes others. It’snot just the history. I suspect the Church doesn’t live up to his lofty expectations either, but the institution has literally been the heart beat of his life. It gave him purpose, direction, success, comfort, even peace. Polygamy doesn’t bug him, seers stones don’t bug him, Joseph’s flip flopping doesn’t either. It’s a peace I can’t fathom, but it’s genuine from him. And any firestorm doesn’t really rile him either. He goes along, says his peace, then visits the grand kids. It’s just another day in a contented life.
I don’t know all that much about him, but your description leaves me scratching my head. Both of him and of the leaders around him. I don’t live in the Mormon corridor, but even where I live I don’t think he can say what he does and not have leaders adjust how they are sitting due to the mental (spiritual) discomfort his words create with them. My SP told bishoprics to acknowledge the essays only if questioned and then leave it at that and not say anything more to the person asking. I sure wish he and his wife or the Givens would have a trip around here sometime.Perhaps we Northeastern Saints are a bit more liberal. The church is definitely different here than it is in the Corridor. That’s not to say we don’t have our share of picayune penguins, parrots, and McConkieites. Honestly I don’t think Bushman or Givens would raise an eyebrow in my stake. Terryl and Fiona did a fireside here last year. My SP has told stake leadership and bishops to become familiar with the essays and refer people to them, and where appropriate reference them in talks and lessons. My SP doesn’t mind being a mythbuster, and (for example) while he wears a white shirt he will also be the first to tell someone chastising a deacon that there is no such requirement. He very much prefers to focus on core gospel principles.
As to Bushman specifically, while it’s not really published who the writers of the essays are it is acknowledged to be a group effort and Bushman is part of the group. Many questioners wonder about the restoration of the MP specifically – after all we have a word-for-word account of the restoration of the AP but the MP is sort of mentioned only in passing (“Oh, yeah, we got that later.”). I probably don’t believe the same about the restoration of the priesthood as Bushman does, but I certainly see why he could acknowledge that it’s possible it’s a fabrication – it is certainly possible. It’s also possible it’s not. Bushman apparently chooses to believe, maybe because he has no convincing evidence to the contrary or maybe he has some other sort of testimony of it – there are a variety of reasons one could or could not believe it.
BTW, if you’re passing by that area the priesthood restoration site is worth a visit. It’s a few miles off I-81 near the Pennsylvania/NY border. The missionaries there will talk about the seer stone and the hat and give some other insights into the translation process and Emma’s family relationships as well as Joseph’s interactions with her family and others in the area.
mom3’s description of Brother Bushman is a pretty good description of me in many ways, and I have said similar things as he has said as I have lived all over the country – from Boston to Alabama to Utah to Ohio to Missouri to Nevada to North Dakota. I think the key is that I say it gently, using Mormon-speak, and everyone knows I am Mormon to the core. There have people I have known personally everywhere I have lived who disagree with me about some things, but they generally dn’t argue vehemently with me.
I try hard not to be or seem like a judgmental prick. It helps.
Latest clarification at Mormon Stories regarding RB’s comments at the fireside. I wanted to add this to the thread to bring it full circle. (Sorry I couldn’t get the link to copy.)
Quote: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.
Thanks Ann. I actually didn’t take it as Richard Bushman changing his views/beliefs, but that he bluntly said the church’s historical narrative was quite flawed and causing people to leave (hinting at the younger generation) AND it needed to change.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.