Criticism of Bushman

[MikeWaters]

Bigbluecougar has been on CB criticizing Bushman's biog of JS. He mentions that he is writing a thesis on the history of High Priesthood.

He also tells me in boardmail "many here in the religion department feel the same way I do about the book Richard has written. "

So not only is he an expert, his opinion is the same as the band of experts whom he is part.

If he is not full of BS, then perhaps Bushman's biography has been poorly received by members of the religion dept. at BYU.

My opinion of the religion dept. is that it is awful. Very little scholarship in that group. I almost never met a student who said "my religion classes were great." A lot might have had one or two that were good, but there were more complaints than compliments. Honestly, you can take those classes and come away knowing nothing more than you started about Mormon history.

The most important indictment is that, I believe, BYU is not even the repository of the best Mormon researchers.

So it would not shock me if many jokers over there think Bushman is crap.

[ute4ever]

But Professor Jones who recently disputed the collapse of the WTC towers was a deft researcher, correct? No word yet if he blames the recent WVA mine collapse on dynamite planted by the White House.

[MikeWaters]

you will never get an argument from me that BYU is good at research. Quite the contrary. Among depts. at BYU, I suspect that religion is particularly bad.

Good LDS scientists will never be at BYU, at least under the present system.

[Brian]

Seeing the criticism bumped it up on my read list. It must be interesting if it is causing such a tizzy. Sadly, amazon estimates delivery time of a month.....

Regards,
Brian

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Bigbluecougar has been on CB criticizing Bushman's biog of JS. He mentions that he is writing a thesis on the history of High Priesthood.

He also tells me in boardmail "many here in the religion department feel the same way I do about the book Richard has written. "

So not only is he an expert, his opinion is the same as the band of experts whom he is part.

If he is not full of BS, then perhaps Bushman's biography has been poorly received by members of the religion dept. at BYU.

My opinion of the religion dept. is that it is awful. Very little scholarship in that group. I almost never met a student who said "my religion classes were great." A lot might have had one or two that were good, but there were more complaints than compliments. Honestly, you can take those classes and come away knowing nothing more than you started about Mormon history.

The most important indictment is that, I believe, BYU is not even the repository of the best Mormon researchers.

So it would not shock me if many jokers over there think Bushman is crap.

BYU as a research university is another topic entirely, but I do think that there are a few bright people in the religion department. I think that the way the courses are taught is a reflection of how gospel principles or gospel doctrine is taught in the church today. Is the mission of BYU and the church in general going to be bolstered if courses delve into half the topics discussed in this forum? Does the church want 30,000 BYU students questioning their faith and shaking their testimonies when they are supposed to leave the University to serve and be a light unto the world?

[MikeWaters]

why do people thing that serious scholarship will damage testimonies?

why is it the closer we get to the truth, some say, the less likely we are to believe?

Instead of calling Bushman "faithless", I call his critics faithless.

If we have serious discussion/scholarship on blacks and the priesthood at BYU--it will cause students to lose their testimonies?

or is it more likely that they struggle on their own, never get any information, and lose their testimonies when they eventually encounter "anti" information on their own?

I understand milk before meat. But a meatless life is intellectually dishonest. For the flagship educational institution of the church to be meatless is a shame.

There are a lot of things that could be done, that have little to do with "meat" that would improve religious education at BYU. One idea I had was to require every student to read a diary of a Utah pioneer/settler. Students should come away with an understanding of their LDS cultural heritage. Right now, I would argue they don't.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

why do people thing that serious scholarship will damage testimonies?

why is it the closer we get to the truth, some say, the less likely we are to believe?

Instead of calling Bushman "faithless", I call his critics faithless.

If we have serious discussion/scholarship on blacks and the priesthood at BYU--it will cause students to lose their testimonies?

or is it more likely that they struggle on their own, never get any information, and lose their testimonies when they eventually encounter "anti" information on their own?

I understand milk before meat. But a meatless life is intellectually dishonest. For the flagship educational institution of the church to be meatless is a shame.

There are a lot of things that could be done, that have little to do with "meat" that would improve religious education at BYU. One idea I had was to require every student to read a diary of a Utah pioneer/settler. Students should come away with an understanding of their LDS cultural heritage. Right now, I would argue they don't.

I agree with just about all of that, Mike. Especialy the part about a meatless life being an empty thing and how easy it is to get messed up by anti stuff when the Church has made absolutely no move to inform its membership of certain 'large' facts in the early days of the church.

I do, however, think that people can be a critic of Bushman(or any other author) so long as they have a basis for doing so. Kneejerk critics don't do anyone any good. I'm guessing that the latter category is the one that you are talking about it.

I, for one, am frustrated at the sheltered (church)educational existance that I lived in high school and college. Somehow the bit about Joseph Smith and his 33 wives(and the situation in which he married some of them) somehow got left out of all the seminary & institute lessons. Oh, and all the BYU religion courses that I went to as well.

[tooblue]

Here’s where I fundamentally disagree and contend with such criticism of BYU (as proxy for the church leadership) and its treatment of our history and religion. Over and over again on such subjects as polygamy, sex education etc. onus and or even blame is placed upon the church and it’s institutions for lack of information, weak explanations and insufficient access to knowledge … it’s the brethren, the leaders, my seminary teacher, my religion class, University president … There nary is mention of ME (or oneself) and my own personal responsibility to research, read, learn and discern for myself the truthfulness of such matters.

I never attended BYU, and for that matter I rarely attended seminary. I do know this, based upon personal experience, any time I have had a question about such issues any person I have ever asked, including my father, bishop, seminary teacher or Sunday school teacher has unapologetically answered my questions … in fact, such practice is ineloquently carried over to here in this very forum every day!

When will we start taking responsibility for our own knowledge and salvation? When will we as a people become a body of Christ? Too much responsibility for comprehension of core doctrine and our unique history is placed upon the leaders of the church. We commend and condemn with the same voice.

The Brethren’s purpose is to teach and govern, not dictate and defend, and from my perspective they teach and govern expertly, with Godly wisdom. Defense of the past is a path the Brethren cannot go down, they will not win; history is fiction mingled with fact. They would spend their time defending as opposed to advancing, and such defense may ultimately only provide pretext for many to walk away and forsake truth … in fact it already does!

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He also tells me in boardmail "many here in the religion department feel the same way I do about the book Richard has written. "

So not only is he an expert, his opinion is the same as the band of experts whom he is part.

If he is not full of BS, then perhaps Bushman's biography has been poorly received by members of the religion dept. at BYU.

My opinion of the religion dept. is that it is awful. Very little scholarship in that group. I almost never met a student who said "my religion classes were great." A lot might have had one or two that were good, but there were more complaints than compliments. Honestly, you can take those classes and come away knowing nothing more than you started about Mormon history.

The most important indictment is that, I believe, BYU is not even the repository of the best Mormon researchers.

So it would not shock me if many jokers over there think Bushman is crap.

I would submit that like with anything else, the religion dept at BYU won't give the book credibility because it did not come from the religion dept. at BYU. Since Bushman is not a BYU prof. and it does the dept. no great benefit to credit him with creating an outstanding work on the life of Joseph Smith, then why would they go out of their way in promotion of the work.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Here’s where I fundamentally disagree and contend with such criticism of BYU (as proxy for the church leadership) and its treatment of our history and religion. Over and over again on such subjects as polygamy, sex education etc. onus and or even blame is placed upon the church and it’s institutions for lack of information, weak explanations and insufficient access to knowledge … it’s the brethren, the leaders, my seminary teacher, my religion class, University president … There nary is mention of ME (or oneself) and my own personal responsibility to research, read, learn and discern for myself the truthfulness of such matters.

I never attended BYU, and for that matter I rarely attended seminary. I do know this, based upon personal experience, any time I have had a question about such issues any person I have ever asked, including my father, bishop, seminary teacher or Sunday school teacher has unapologetically answered my questions … in fact, such practice is ineloquently carried over to here in this very forum every day!

When will we start taking responsibility for our own knowledge and salvation? When will we as a people become a body of Christ? Too much responsibility for comprehension of core doctrine and our unique history is placed upon the leaders of the church. We commend and condemn with the same voice.

The Brethren’s purpose is to teach and govern, not dictate and defend, and from my perspective they teach and govern expertly, with Godly wisdom. Defense of the past is a path the Brethren cannot go down, they will not win; history is fiction mingled with fact. They would spend their time defending as opposed to advancing, and such defense may ultimately only provide pretext for many to walk away and forsake truth … in fact it already does!

I will not argue about personal responsibility and such but when you start to imply that HS & college students need to attend their seminary/institute/BYU class, do their homework for said class(es), and then go poring over research(just in case the instructor missed anything, I suppose) often not published by the church then I just don't think that you are painting a realistic picture of most students' lives. Most of the students depend on the classes for this information and seldom have daily time for extra religion study.

I still remember my seminary teacher being asked if Joseph was involved in polygamy. She said that she would check on it. Later she said that she didn't think so. How do we expect the students to know this stuff when the teacher doesn't?