Mormon Stories RIPS into Richard Bushman

[Craig Paxton]

In the most recent episode of MS, John Dehlin gets personal and rips into Richard Bushman with a litany of questions holding Bushman accountable and almost responsible for failing to take a more active roll in getting LDS Inc. to be more transparent and honest with its founding narrative.

Dehlin quotes the now famous Bushman quote where in he says that the traditional founding narrative is not sustainable and that the church is holding off being more truthful to protect the grandmothers in Sanpete county at the expense of their grandchildren who are exiting the church in mass.
(Link to full quote) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K06ysskTUS4

It's an interesting rant but to be honest I was quite surprised. I mean, what does Dehlin expect Bushman to do exactly. He's already stated that the current narrative is not sustainable and it's not like Bushman has the power to make policy changes.

I sense that Dehlin expects Bushman to make a crash and burn move and use up all clout he may have to exact change in the church...I just found the podcast somewhat bizarre but still very entertaining if only in a..."that will only happen in an Alternative Universe"...kind of way.

For those interested in either watching or listening to the podcast you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySz56doTEKU

[Rivendale]

I think it was more than just for Bushman. It was for all the apologists that know the details but never speak out in any public forum. They reap the benefits from the church by being silent.

[Craig Paxton]

I think it was more than just for Bushman. It was for all the apologists that know the details but never speak out in any public forum. They reap the benefits from the church by being silent.

Is it practical to hope that Mormon Apologists, who by their very nature believe in the over arching mission of Mormonism, would use up any goodwill they may have banked with LDS Inc. to publicly throw Mormonism under the bus?

I have personally spoken with Bushman and got the impression that he remains a believer in spite of the false narrative the church promotes. He just believes in the actual narrative, the one the church is afraid of telling for fear that grandmothers in Sanpete will lose faith.

[Rivendale]

I think it was more than just for Bushman. It was for all the apologists that know the details but never speak out in any public forum. They reap the benefits from the church by being silent.

Is it practical to hope that Mormon Apologists, who by their very nature believe in the over arching mission of Mormonism, would use up any goodwill they may have banked with LDS Inc. to publicly throw Mormonism under the bus?

I have personally spoken with Bushman and got the impression that he remains a believer in spite of the false narrative the church promotes. He just believes in the actual narrative, the one the church is afraid of telling for fear that grandmothers in Sanpete will lose faith.

I can't speak for him but he keeps harping on "informed consent". He seems frustrated that none of them will publicly state the issues. I agree it isn't in their best interest to point at the warts of Mormonism but he is publicly calling them enablers of said false narrative. The grandmothers of Sanpete are getting fewer and fewer and so are the leaders. Seems like that generational sacrifice is continuing.

[Alphus and Omegus]

I didn't listen, but it seems to me that if the GAs were to be more forthright about the stories, the Sanpete grandmothers would likely never even be aware that it happened, or if they were, it wouldn't bother them that much.

I'm no RLDS expert but it seems to me that they only really had a big schism when they decided to completely de-emphasize the Book of Mormon and change the church name. People didn't really complain en masse leading up to it.

[jpatterson]

John Dehlin is just about the last person who needs to be lecturing anyone about being more transparent and honest with founding narratives.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

John Dehlin is just about the last person who needs to be lecturing anyone about being more transparent and honest with founding narratives.

K.

And he’s more popular than ever. Have you seen his dopey doe-eyed hot take videos on Tik Tok and shared via Reddit? Hundreds and hundreds of supporters and fans. I think you and Rosebud lost your crusade. I ain’t sayin’ you should move on, but if you wanna give ex-Mormon Thanos more than a nick on the cheek you’re going to have to go back in time and take him out.

Here’s a picture of the car John Dehlin can now afford:



- Doc

[Kishkumen]

John Dehlin really ought to drop his Bushman stuff. He didn’t understand what Bushman was saying in the first place, and his demands of Bushman are pretty dumb.

[dastardly stem]

John Dehlin really ought to drop his Bushman stuff. He didn’t understand what Bushman was saying in the first place, and his demands of Bushman are pretty dumb.

Its likely a very strategic move on Dehlin's part. He needs to continually find ways to infuse his business with energy. If he can get questioning Mormons or Mormons who are freshly out to really start pushing on people for the things they say, it'll be a big win for him. He's demonstrating how to do that, with this, it seems (although I didn't listen or watch it so maybe i'm wrong). I don't know that appealing to the wrongness or rightness of this move will be heard, nor the wrongness of his take.

I'd say Bushman's little snippet is interesting. He seems to be a little unclear. In some parts he's indicating the church has moved, already, in the right direction. In other part he seems to think change is coming and it's going to be difficult. The questioning of the narratives and how people experience Mormonism tends to obscure a little here, leaving plenty of room for people to misinterpret or run on assumptions about what is meant. But, Kish, your comment has me curious for sure. What about Dehlin's take was misunderstanding what Bush was saying?

[Kishkumen]

Its likely a very strategic move on Dehlin's part. He needs to continually find ways to infuse his business with energy. If he can get questioning Mormons or Mormons who are freshly out to really start pushing on people for the things they say, it'll be a big win for him. He's demonstrating how to do that, with this, it seems (although I didn't listen or watch it so maybe i'm wrong). I don't know that appealing to the wrongness or rightness of this move will be heard, nor the wrongness of his take.

I'd say Bushman's little snippet is interesting. He seems to be a little unclear. In some parts he's indicating the church has moved, already, in the right direction. In other part he seems to think change is coming and it's going to be difficult. The questioning of the narratives and how people experience Mormonism tends to obscure a little here, leaving plenty of room for people to misinterpret or run on assumptions about what is meant. But, Kish, your comment has me curious for sure. What about Dehlin's take was misunderstanding what Bush was saying?

Let's say I felt confident of the meaning of Bushman's words--I am not, but let's say I were. Would I berate Bushman for not pushing the leaders of the LDS Church to change the Church's teachings regarding history in the way I (in this case John Dehlin) would prefer them to be taught?

No. I have a hard time knowing where to begin in describing how presumptuous, unfair, and stupid this is.

It is stupid and unfair because Bushman is in no position to tell the Brethren how to teach Church history. He is not, after all, a leader of the Church, not an apostle. Since when do the Brethren allow an individual scholar to dictate the teaching of Church history to them?

So what is Dehlin advocate exactly? That Bushman should put his membership in jeopardy to "speak truth to power"? (I am so tired of hearing Dehlin use that tired phrase. Everyone is a rebel and an activist as personal performance art, kind of like playing air guitar in front of a mirror.)

And which history is the real history? History of a scholarly kind is an ongoing debate, not the eternally settled truth of the matter. Dehlin is so blithely obtuse in his reification of history as a collection of reliable facts that it is infuriating.

Really, I am just plain tired of John Dehlin's missionary efforts. I think the time for them has passed. Sure, he will continue to have an audience that follows the secular primrose path out of the LDS Church. I mostly blame the LDS Church for this state of affairs, but it doesn't mean I think much of Dehlin's way of thinking about religion and spirituality.