Comments about ‘Emily W. Jensen: At symposium honoring birthday, Bushman says now is 'golden age' of Mormon historical scholarship’

"We do not need to conceal our history..."

A refreshing position from a respected LDS scholar...one that will certainly add much needed academic integrity to the discussion of historical truth if employed by all LDS scholars. Unfortunately, this type of credibility is painfully missing from the nonsensical rhetorical patterns employed by LDS apologists.

Perhaps Bushman's statement should have ended with...

"...nor should we forget any fact when it becomes inconvenient, sanitize the truth at the expense of honesty, or rationalize a conclusion that's obviously contrary to reality."

The Book of Abraham debacle is a glaring example of such disingenuous and deliberate obfuscation of the facts by many LDS apologists that comes at the expense of intellectual honesty.

"Church leaders, scholars and young minds are combining to tell more accurate history, Bushman said."

I'm not sure I would include church leaders in this statement, but I hope to be proven wrong. Apologetic histories that ttempt to protect the populous from unsavory facts are actually harmful to the church in the long run. There was a poll published not too long ago (I think in the Dnews) that said that members of the church would prefer an honest and full history to incomplete faith-promoting one. It's one thing to overcome difficult problems in church history, it is an additional hurdle to overcome the realization that those problems may have been hidden from you.

There often is a big difference between the way LDS history is approached by some LDS scholars like Bushman, LDS apologists, and official LDS correlated material used in LDS classes and meetings. I recognize each of those three have different purposes. But the end result can often be members who recognize LDS history and doctrine has been presented in very different ways depending on who wrote it.

Members who do not read beyond the correlated manuals of Sunday School class or Priesthood/Relief Society can experience a real challenge of faith when they run across very different versions of the same history or teachings. This can occur even when one only sticks to LDS material such as LDS apologetics or scholars. They both can be very different from the correlated material - and from each other. Then if one ventures into secular scholarly material, a whole new level of shock can take place.

There is no question that the Church is way past the time when it can largely control the LDS message or story. I think the church needs to officially (not just through apologists and scholars) address the full and accurate version of it's history.

Good heavens, I took a class from Prof. Bushman back in the olden days when I was a lad.

Tell it like it is. Even the great men of our LDS past have their warts and moles.

"That the gospel may be proclaimed by the weak and the simple" (D&C 1:23). Members of the church are weak and simple; we may have the truth, but we can't have everything else in the world. The rich world is humbled to lack the truth, the Saints are humbled to be weak and simple. There is humble pie for everyone. Prof. Bushman is a remarkable person and example: alert, patient, meek and full of humor and life.

Weber State Graduate,

I love the Book of Abraham.

Idaho Coug: I fail to understand why some members feels the Church needs to come clean of its history. All of it is in books and journals if one cares to find the truth instead of allowing others outside the Church to tell slanted stories. People who continue to say this really need to look it up as it is in the ENSIGN, and even Church History itself. All one has to do is to look for it.

The LDS Church told on itself when it mentioned that Joseph Smith practiced pologamy in Nauvoo. Still the Community of Christ refused to believe it. The LDS Church has explained it all. You just have to look for it. It will not and should not be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood/Relief Society or during Sacrament meeting. It is taught in instutional classes and other places. You just have to know where to look. Most of the information I have found have been within Church books. Remember I will not read anything from outside the Church because of the outright lies and misunderstood concepts.

Bill in Nebraska said ,Remember I will not read anything from outside the Church because of the outright lies and misunderstood concepts.

That seer his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father. (JST 50:33) (Joseph Smith Jr), the Bible refutes JS prophecy of himself. Mormons believe JS, not Christian and Jew.

Brigham Young, Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you Nay, If a Jew comes into this church ,and the blood honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize.(JoD V. 2 p. 142)

Do you believe the above?

Hello Bill - I appreciate your response. You are right that literally everything can be found somewhere in material written at some point by a faithful member of the church. But the reality is that the vast majority of the church get their LDS education from the basic Sunday lessons and accompanying material. Rank and file members DO NOT read the vast array of material that you have or that you mention. Therefore, MOST members are only exposed to a very defined, narrow, managed version of LDS history. That leaves the "rest of the story" in the hands of critics of the church or LDS scholars and historians. Because the church refuses to officially tell the whole story in its basic, correlated material, that gap often will and is being filled by those very critical of the church.

The church can't complain what is being said about it when it refuses to take the initiative to tell the full story itself (officially - not just through LDs scholars and apologists). And pointing to old and obscure articles in an Ensign that no longer exist in 99% of LDS homes is NOT taking the initiative to tell the whole story.

Twin Lights,

I'm glad you love the story of the BoA. I tried to share with you the title of story that I love also, but the DN censored the name of that story. I'm not entirely sure why they found the name of the story so offensive...it's a classic children's tale with a valuable lesson. Perhaps if I give the name of the author and a brief description, it might pass censorship.

The author is Hans Christian Anderson and the story is about the courage of a young child in a crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up a pretense, blurts out a fact about a misperception regarding the attire of a local Emperor. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession anyway.

In my opinion, Bushman shows similar courage of the young child with his statement that "We do not need to conceal our history..." Supporting the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, in my opinion, perpetuates an error of perception similar to the pretense found in the classic children's story.

Idaho Coug,

I think the work on the Joseph Smith papers and that other resources are being made available online (such as the Ensign in searchable format going back to the early 1970s) are all evidence that the Church is, in fact, trying to make things available.

The basic Sunday School lessons are just that - basic. Meant not for detailed historical knowledge (many folks are simply are that interested) but to encourage faith and help them along the path to righteous living.

I don't worry about a lot the critics. Nor have I generally found (at least our here in "the mission field" that historical criticism is a significant factor in folks losing their testimony. The reverse is more often true - that they lose their testimony and then become critical.

The story the Church has to tell is ultimately not about history per se. It is about Christ, the Restoration, and how to live our lives to better know Christ and follow him today.

Thanks Twin Lights. I do agree that the Joseph Smith papers will be a great resource. So the question becomes will future correlated material be more complete given that things like the JS papers are so available?

I guess this is an issue for me because I have struggled with it and I actually know many members who actually left the church due to a sense that a very different story was being told in missionary discussions and general LDS material.

Let me give a simple example. In Joseph Smith's first and only handwritten account of the First Vision, he omits any mention of Heavenly Father and he goes into some detail about what Jesus Christ said to him. For some reason, I have never seen that version or the words Jesus spoke mentioned in any basic Sunday lesson. This version is likely the most accurate as it was the one written closest to the actual event and the only one not written by someone other than JS. Yes you can find it. But it never mentioned in basic LDS correlated material.

That is the kind of thing that I mean. And really no reason for it's exclusion.

Idaho Coug,

I think I first heard about the account you mention in Institute. I believe I have heard about it in Sunday School as well.

Will future Sunday School or other materials be more complete? My own opinion is yes. I think I already see some movement and the publication of the JS papers and other items will likely push things more that way.

I have some exposure to history. Not as much as some. Honestly, it doesn't bother me. I find generally no more imperfection in the modern prophets and apostles than in the old. I think of them as having different and more important callings than my own, but not as perfect folks.

Perhaps the best teaching I ever received was from Sister Hinckley. Pres. Hinckley had been the prophet for a few years and had been decades in the First Presidency and apostleship. At one meeting, she remarked how much he had changed since assuming the presidency. It struck home that improvement meant he was better now than he was before. Not saying he was bad before, simply that he was still getting better.

We can all do that.

@ Weber State Grad: Like Twin Lights, I love the Book of Abraham. Like you, I love Hans Christian Anderson. Unlike you, I don't see any parallels between the two.

Of course, I know what parallel you're trying to draw, but, since you are not a member of the LDS Church, you will excuse us if we don't share your disdain for the book.

I am particularly grateful for the clarification the Book of Abraham gives to the creation story, to the pre-mortal life, to fore-ordination, to the Abrahamic covenant, and to the intelligence and learning of the so-called "primitives"--among other things.

To Idaho Coug: We have had this discussion on another link, and I think I understand where you're coming from, but I also think I agree with the curriculum committee of the Church here. Give milk at first; let the members decide when they're ready for meat. The material is available for anyone to search it, and Bushman's book and the internet have made it even more accessible. The Church's goal is to lead members to Christ, and that is done through the Spirit--after that, everything falls into place.

Jeff, you are correct. Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society is not the place to discuss why somethings are different. As I have noted before all are available on line and on the LDS website. Many of the questions some ask are even available to be answered on Mormon.org as well. It is up to the membership to take and to look up things. Just to fall away because someone gives you a publication that talks about Joseph Smith pologamy, or the priesthood and imagined racism. One must go to the source for the enlightenment. As for Idaho Coug's comment on the first vision. If you go to the official website and search FIRST VISION, you get a very good article on the many variations and why. This takes away the questions and allows one to see that the differences are just that, a difference in telling the story but NOT a contradiction.

Sometimes some members fall because they were looking for a reason to, such as why this is different. If one really wants to understand the teachings of the Missionaries, read PREACH MY GOSPEL. It is important for all members to do so.