Faithful Heretics: Read This Post

[Sleeping in EQ]

This link is to Bushman's introduction to the Joseph Smith and His Critics Seminar:

http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com...eph-smith.html

Isn't Bushman bringing together many of the things we say and experience? Many of us have been trailblazers, and I'm glad to see Bushman and Co. out there in a big way, trying to make the journey a little smoother.

In small ways, the Church is starting to come around to those of us who are heterodox but orthoprax. This little article has made my morning and warmed my heart. Do yourself a favor and read it!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Great article.

As I was waiting for Bushman to sign my copy of RSR a few weeks back I got to listen to a young LDS woman talk with him about her struggle to reconcile JS polyandry. It was interesting to watch how he handled it. Certainly was consistent with the approach discussed in the article.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Looks like a pretty interesting conference. Here is a summary:

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/no...eminar-part-1/

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/no...eminar-part-2/

I wonder when the talks will be published? Are they online somewhere yet?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

This link is to Bushman's introduction to the Joseph Smith and His Critics Seminar:

http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com...eph-smith.html

Isn't Bushman bringing together many of the things we say and experience? Many of us have been trailblazers, and I'm glad to see Bushman and Co. out there in a big way, trying to make the journey a little smoother.

In small ways, the Church is starting to come around to those of us who are heterodox but orthoprax. This little article has made my morning and warmed my heart. Do yourself a favor and read it!

Bushman may be the only person outside of leadership who has the gravitas and the sand to take this approach and be taken seriously. I particularly liked this quote:

"Rather than destroy the critics, we want to loosen their grip. In the long run, we believe this approach will persuade questioners more effectively than claims to certainty where none is possible. We believe in stating our own strong convictions about the church as a whole, but we do not to pretend to perfect knowledge about complex historical questions."

I think most of the "stock" answers to difficult questions currently include at least some claims of certainty were a none is possible and/or an attack on the messenger. Bushman is absolutely right that this leads pretty quickly to the conclusion that the person delivering the answer doesn't understand the question. It is uncomfortable, but I believe it is important that we engage in exactly what is being suggested here even if it is at the risk of "loosening" our own grip on claims of certainty in some areas in order to loosen the grips of the critics.