An approach to LDS history: 9 ProTips from Richard Bushman

[tooblue]

It doesn't contradict anything he said.

OK. So, help me square this all then. He got into Harvard because of his LDS connections? Or taught at Brown, Delaware and Boston University because and due only to his LDS connections and his Mormonism? And his first book is all about Mormonism, hence it was awarded Bancroft and Phi Alpha Theta prizes (what ever they are)?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674325517

We're talking about the foundation of his career path, just be clear. What got him to where he is now? A "whole" body of work. Interestingly, neither you or I got into Harvard. Seattle certainly didn't. Of course we didn't want to, though. I imagine. But I guess we also didn't have the same access to LDS ... connections? We were less Mormon? That must be it, right?

You know, I have no vested faith in Richard Bushman. I enjoyed Rough Rolling Stone. I do find it interesting that in this thread SeattleUte first suggests Bushman is too intellectual / academic to have a testimony (guilt by association to/with Mit Romney, and Seattles well chronicled derision of Romney's assertions of faith). And then effectively states his testimony is too academic to be a testimony? Followed by, well he has a vested interest in maintaining a "testimony" but only because it benefits him professionally. When the evidence in his bio—the "whole" body of work—contradicts SeattleUtes assertions and clearly indicates otherwise.

[SeattleUte]

OK. So, help me square this all then. He got into Harvard because of his LDS connections? Or taught at Brown, Delaware and Boston University because and due only to his LDS connections and his Mormonism? And his first book is all about Mormonism, hence it was awarded Bancroft and Phi Alpha Theta prizes (what ever they are)?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674325517

We're talking about the foundation of his career path, just be clear. What got him to where he is now? A "whole" body of work. Interestingly, neither you or I got into Harvard. Seattle certainly didn't. Of course we didn't want to, though. I imagine. But I guess we also didn't have the same access to LDS ... connections? We were less Mormon? That must be it, right?

You know, I have no vested faith in Richard Bushman. I enjoyed Rough Rolling Stone. I do find it interesting that in this thread SeattleUte first suggests Bushman is too intellectual / academic to have a testimony (guilt by association to/with Mit Romney, and Seattles well chronicled derision of Romney's assertions of faith). And then effectively states his testimony is too academic to be a testimony? Followed by, well he has a vested interest in maintaining a "testimony" but only because it benefits him professionally. When the evidence in his bio—the "whole" body of work—contradicts SeattleUtes assertions and clearly indicates otherwise.

Except for the fact this is not what Seattle wrote, sure it's dead on.

[tooblue]

Except for the fact this is not what Seattle wrote, sure it's dead on.

You didn't write:

He's been adroit at walking a fine line such that continued affiliation with the LDS Church hasn't cost him anything. On the contrary, I'd argue that, for example, like Romney, it's a big net gain. He's an academic at an Ivy League school, not a business tycoon, so perhaps remaining in good standing in the LDS network (which, at least in Romney's case, includes a wealthy Mormon family with many rich Mormon contacts) is not as evidently important.

or

Less tangibly, as a Mormon scholar he's probably managed to leverage his LDS loyalty such that his very ability to walk the fine line has served him well professionally.

or

as Bushman's alleged belief lends credence to LDS theology, and he must believe because it's been such a sacrifice for him to remain associated with the LDS Church. The fact is, as BYU professor Young points out, his "testimony" is anything but straightforward, filled with circumlocution, and considerably more wordy than would seem to be necessary to express a simple faith or belief that the provenance of the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith is alleged to have said it was.

or

I really don't give a hoot what Bushman believes about the LDS Church. I don't think it makes a difference, even though he has written an admired biography of Joseph Smith.

Did you have a Viking episode, where someone—nefariously, but with your blessing—took over your account?

[Rocker Ute]

Bushman is in a tough spot. If he comes straight out and says he believes the truth claims around the Book of Mormon without acknowledging the things he does acknowledge, he loses credibility among his non-LDS historian colleagues. If he says he doesn't believe he loses the faithful LDS crowd. I think he tries to tread lightly in both directions. His words: "Practiced historians speak moderately rather than polemically."

https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysa..._eastern_time/

I think we should be careful to read too much into his words when we know from this quote what he is practicing.

[Viking]

Shared accounts are fun until they aren't. Suicide on CUF was painless. Time away has been great. DDD is easily the smartest guy on any message board. I couldn't see his shtick for what it was until I realized who he was. Genius. Those guys have a neat thing going over there.