Bias Confirmation- Richard Bushman

Before I speak about this new article from the SL Tribune about Richard Bushman, I want to share with you some import differences I see between the belief system of Brother Bushman and other Traditionalists. See my blog here for more detail about An Apologist. As I discuss things below I am not claiming to speak for any other member of M2C or Heartlander, and I am definitely not speaking on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I love the Lord and His Church and I am a lifelong member in good standing.

---

I define myself as a Traditional & Conservative Apologist as well as many of my Heartland geography friends would.

Traditional is an advocate of maintaining tradition, especially so as to resist change. A person who believes the old ways are best. Truth cannot be changed. God’s in charge not man as a generalization. Judgmental of unusual behavior.
Conservative is a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values. A person favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas and an adherence to God and His principles.
Apologist is a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people.” A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. Both M2C and Heartlanders are Apologists.

Most believers on the Mesoamerican two Cumorah Theory (M2C) belief of geography, I would say are Liberal, & Progressive Apologists.

Liberal a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. One who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. Man’s more in charge not God, as a generalization. Less judgmental of norms.
Progressive a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. Favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas. Developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step until traditional values become more liberal or progressive.

Difficult Questions and Answers

Most Heartlanders are Conservative or believe in the Traditional history of the Church. Most in the M2C camp are more Liberal or Intellectual and believe in the Revisionist history of the Church. Most Traditional Mormons would answer questions about sensitive issues similar to me as follows:

DNA- We believe there may be Hebrew DNA in many Native American Indians near the Great Lakes of the Algonquian and Iroquois tribes. Only Asian DNA has been found amongst the people of South, and Central America and amongst other Western Native Americans of the United States and Alaska. We believe most of those living in the South Pacific Islands are of Israelite blood, but we haven’t found DNA yet. M2C believe the Asian DNA found in Central America is because the Asian population over took any Hebrew DNA that may have existed as during the time of Lehi.
Evolution: We do not believe a cat could evolve into a dog and we don’t believe an ape can evolve into Man. We do believe in Evolution defined as change or adaptation within a species. Most intellectuals believe we evolved from an ape and change can happen outside of a species.
Translation of the Gold Plates: We believe they were translated by the power of God with Joseph using the breastplate and two clear stones in a silver bow (Like spectacles) that were found in the same hill as the plates. Most M2C followers believe the stone in the hat method of translation (SITH). They believe Joseph Smith never looked at the gold plates to translate.
Seer Stones: We believe Joseph had several seer stones that were used for faithful things by Joseph, but Joseph did not use a seer stone in his hat to translate the the Book of Mormon. If he did use this method, he would be just reading words from a seer stone that someone gave him to be written down so he wouldn’t have “translated” the places but just would have dictated the words to Oliver. Joseph also used the Urim and Thummim to translate parts of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Politics- We are mostly very conservative, love the US Constitution and our Founding Fathers. We believe in the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. Most of us don’t agree with many of the politics of fellow Mormon Mitt Romney and we love the great freedoms that Trump has given us. We also love Benjamin Netanyahu and how he has served our brothers and sisters in Israel. We don’t approve of the socialized version of government. We don’t agree with Socialism, Marxism, Communism, or Progressivism. We believe rights can only come from God not from Government.
Polygamy: We believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were following the commandments to practice polygamy just as Abraham and others were instructed. Satan just uses this highly controversial idea to get us to doubt things. Only about 3% of the entire church ever practiced polygamy. We believe when the Lord commands us, we should listen. Spiritual marriage is a higher law of God and has nothing to do with a physical relationship.
Science: We believe the dinosaurs lived during the Old Testament with Adam and were killed during the great world wide flood. We also believe that rocks were created during the flood which was an event that happened at about 2345 BC. Most Intellectuals believe the dinosaurs are millions of years old. We believe Noah’s worldwide flood was real. Many M2C think it may have been a myth. We have shown in a laboratory that wood can be fossilized in 2 days not in millions of years. (See Universal Model by Dean Sessions).
Creationism: We believe Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman placed on this earth around 4,000 BC and the earth is only about 12,000 years old, but the material of the earth is billions of years old as matter cannot be created but has existed forever. Most intellectuals believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old as the consensus on google says. They also believe in cave men and men on earth before Adam.
Testimony
Most of the M2C theory are just as valiant as Heartlanders are in the Church and they are both trying to help others as good members of this Church. We just have different beliefs in some matters. Both sides should strive to love one another.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral when it comes to Book of Mormon Geography and many of the other subjects from my above list.

M2C Apologists: They say they are neutral and open to hearing about other geographical theories of the Book of Mormon. I don’t believe they are neutral. The may vaguely listen to others, but they are staunch in the Mesoamerican belief. I believe they say they are neutral to stay in a supportive role with the Church.

John L. Sorenson a leader of the Mesoamerican Theory said, “There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd. Hundreds of thousands of Nephites traipsing across the Mississippi Valley to New York, pursued (why?) by hundreds of thousands of Lamanites, is a scenario worthy only of a witless sci-fi movie, not of history.” John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex (Deseret Book, 2013), p. 688.

Heartland Apologists: We love and support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we are mostly life long members in good standing. We are not neutral in our opinions about Book of Mormon Geography. We believe Book of Mormon events happened in the heartland of North America. The Book of Mormon is only a small percent of history and through marriage and migration we acknowledge there are other Lamanites that live outside of this Heartland, not spoken of in the Book of Mormon, including in the western United States, Canada and Central and South America.

My Blog about both competing theories is here:

Bias Confirmation

“Bias confirmation is not inherently good or bad. It’s a core part of our psychology. It helps us navigate an uncertain and unpredictable world. We confirm our biases daily in innumerable ways. If your bias makes you happy and productive, great. But there’s always a risk that the bias we’re confirming is based on a mistake.

The big mistake here is the assumption that Rough Stone Rolling is actual history. It’s not. It presents merely an abridgment of one version of history. Like every other book, it relates some facts and omits others. It suggests some conclusions and omits others. It’s not good or bad. It’s a tool. It’s one of many windows into actual history.

I always say people can believe whatever they want. It doesn’t matter to me what you believe. I just encourage people to pursue the truth and make informed decisions.” Jonathan Neville Here

Stoddard’s About Bushman 

FAITH CRISIS: Did the LDS Church Lie? (Part 1 ) We Were NOT Betrayed! By James and Hannah Stoddard  “A Reconstructed Narrative” 

Many remain unaware of the growing movement among disaffected members and disgruntled academic scholars within the Church to change our history. While the effort to progressively alter the traditional history is not a new phenomenon, the last few years have produced a sharp increase in the number of prominent Latter-day Saint historians and intellectual scholars who are calling for a ‘reconstructed narrative.’ 

One of those leading that charge is Richard L. Bushman, a prominent, progressive, New Mormon Historian whom some consider the “world’s foremost scholar on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism.” During a July 12, 2016 fireside, Bushman responded to a participant’s question regarding whether the traditional understanding of Church history is accurate: 

Question: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative? 

Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change.  

The following month, Bushman elaborated on his meaning in connection with a new reconstructed narrative by making the with the following statement: 

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct. 

Bushman is not alone in calling for a new Joseph Smith, and a new Church history with an accompanying newly-crafted Mormon culture. Throughout this and later volumes chapters we will hear from historians who are encouraging a “new era,” and who hope to shift the general consciousness of the Church toward one of ‘intellectual enlightenment.’ One professor scholar even went so far as to call for the “foundation” to be torn down and completely rebuilt. 

According to Bushman, from the most-recently baptized member, to multi-generational Latter-day Saints born and raised in the Church—all the way to the hierarchy—large numbers many are turning to the historians who are eagerly altering the foundational fundamental restoration story, based on their new ‘enlightened’ own interpretation. In the progressive mind their minds, Latter-day Saints have been fed a fictitious fallacious account of their  Mormon origins, but all now need to adapt their antiquate down understanding ideas to match the positions of these broad-minded progressive historians. For Bushman and his eager proselytes, the old story was inaccurate, and—at best—a feel-good myth; or—at worst it was a deliberate deceit, at its worst. Apparently, everyone was fooled except a few the New Mormon Historians, who have now solved the puzzle. 

Who is this new ‘Joseph Smith,’ and what constitutes a “reconstructed narrative”?  For those who are unaware, Bushman’s book, Rough Stone Rolling, presents a Joseph Smith who differs dramatically from the Joseph Smith advocated spoken of by past leaders, teachers and scholars in Presidents of the Church.  In contrast according to Rough Stone Rolling: 

• Joseph Smith was “involved in magic” (p 53). 
• Joseph Smith’s involvement in “magic . . . was a preparatory gospel” (p 53) and “[r]emnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end” (p 51). 
• Joseph Smith gave “angry responses,” and “lashed back.” (pp 295-296). 
• Joseph Smith had “easily bruised pride.“ He was “unable to bear criticism” and “rebuked anyone who challenged him” (p 296). 
• Joseph Smith suffered from “treasure-seeking greed” (p 51). 
• The Smith family has been “diagnosed as a dysfunctional family that produced a psychologically crippled son” (p 55). 
• The Smith family was drawn to “treasure-seeking folklore,” and saw astrology and magical “formulas and rituals” as connected to their spiritual well-being (pp 50-51). 
• “Magic and religion melded in Smith family culture” (p 51). 
• Consecration “never worked properly. . . . The system’s two-year existence was about average for the various communal experiments being undertaken in the period” (p 183). 
• Joseph Smith Sr. was an “oft-defeated, unmoored father” (pp 26-27) who “partially abdicated family leadership” (p 42).   
• Joseph Smith Sr.’s “life [was] blighted by shame” (p 42). 
• “Was Joseph Smith an adulterer? . . . Had Joseph been involved in an illicit affair?” (p 323) 
• Joseph Smith’s “boasting” made his personal secretary “a little uncomfortable” (p 484). Joseph would “cut loose with extravagant comments about his mastery” (p 484). 
• Joseph Smith had “outrageous confidence” for attempting the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible (p 132). 
• “Treasure seeking taught Joseph to look for the unseen in a stone” (p 131).  
• Joseph “from time to time drank too much” (p 43). 
• Joseph “probably exaggerated” the persecution after relating his First Vision. (p 43) 
• Joseph Smith had “[n]o flashes of intelligence, ambition, or faith distinguish him” (p 143).  
• Joseph Smith “was not the luminous figure he is sometimes made out to be. . . . His own person was effaced” (p 112). 

Bushman admitted that the proposed ‘reconstructed narrative’ of Latter-day Saint Church History, as well as the life and character of the Prophet Joseph Smith  clearly departed from the traditional or “dominant narrative” given to us by previous past Church historians, including Willard Richards, who was present at the Carthage martyrdom, George A. Smith, first cousin to the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Presidents Wilford Woodruff and Joseph Fielding Smith.   

Is The Dominant Narrative True? 

Is the dominant narrative true? To answer this question, we must first define what it is that represents the dominant narrative. For nearly two centuries, the Church maintained a consistent message about its foundational events; that God directed Joseph Smith as His Prophet to restore His truth, and to organize the Church according to the pattern of His primitive Church. Furthermore, that account characterizes the Prophet Joseph Smith as a righteous man who built the Church based on literal revelations received directly from God; that actual angels appeared, and the members witnessed the manifestation of authentic miracles. Additionally, God restored His priesthood through Joseph Smith, the restorer and Head of this dispensation, who stands next to the Son of God in righteousness and holiness as a pure and holy vessel. 

Subsequent to the sealing of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s testimony with his blood—at the Martyrdom where he fell with his noble brother, Hyrum—Brigham Young, who called himself “Joseph’s apostle,” continued to promote the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and to orchestrate his vision. Succeeding leaders and faithful members earnestly strive to carry on the Prophet Joseph’s work, testifying of and echoing his teachings in their lives, and to the world. 

Traditionalists believe the points of the foregoing represent the essence—the dominant narrative—of the Restoration event, and that true history and credible sources corroborate the particulars of this account. The evidence, and the historical witnesses, stand in full support of the Church’s and Joseph Smith’s accounts. Progressives disagree adamantly, arguing that the dominant narrative of the Church is “not true,” and believing that an immense cover-up has occurred—that when acknowledged, will allow a full-scale reconstruction of the story. The Angel Moroni told Joseph Smith that his name would be “had for good and evil,” so it is perhaps fitting that the struggle continues, both on the world’s stage and in the homes of the members of the Church. Time will vindicate the truthfulness of the record; that there was no cover-up, and that the true greatness of Joseph Smith is not less—but rather far greater—than what we might have imagined.  

Nevertheless, the Church is a temporal organization of imperfect human beings who strive, with varying degrees of success, to follow God’s will. Along the way, there have been some issues and historical complexities in which Presidents of the Church and other General Authorities acted in less-than-straight-forward ways. There have been times when the Lord required Presidents to act on His direction, and there may have been other times when Presidents acted according to the best light and knowledge they had, and were doing their best. 

Examples of where the Church leaders were perhaps less than one hundred percent straight-forward might include Joseph Smith’s carefully-worded denials of plural marriage in Nauvoo. This can be understood in considering that the Lord had commanded the practice of plural marriage in opposition to the laws of the land, necessitating that its practice be out of the public eye. Another example might be the continuance of post-1890 Manifesto polygamy. The Church publicly discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the issuance of the Manifesto (Official Declaration 1), but plural marriages were afterwards performed with the sanction of the President of the Church for some years. We do hold that the Presidents of the Church did not commit any dishonourable actions or decisions contrary to the will of God. This becomes clear once one understands the true history. However, the history and further exploration into these subjects exceeds the purpose of this work; they must fall under the pen of a future volume.  

In addition to these highly-poised issues, Presidents of the Church—especially during the administrations of David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball—and even more so during recent times, have paid careful attention to the message available to the media; and so far as is possible, have portrayed the Church in its best-possible light according to public opinion and perception. All businesses and organizations are acutely aware of this necessity today. Is every decision made by leaders altogether inspired? Such answers are far too difficult for us to know individually, but the responsibility stands rightfully between the Lord and the leaders of the Church. We believe, at least generally, that these decisions have been made in righteousness.  

However, historical nuances and the analogue of human imperfection are not the focus of this book; nor, we would suggest, are they the source of the ‘trust gap,’ the sense of lost moorings, felt by so many of today’s Latter-day Saints. At the end of the day, one question nagging thousands of Latter-day Saints can be summarized thus: “Is the dominant, traditional narrative true?” One might further ask, “Did the founding of the Church originate as presented by Joseph Smith and his companions who affirmed his narrative, or are there skeletons in the closet?” Progressives claim the Church covered up its history for nearly 200 years, but the student of truth must ask, is the current faith crisis the result of unmasked history . . . or of new interpretations? 

The authors believe that the dominant narrative is not only true, but in many respects has been understated. The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the work of Joseph Smith and those loyal to his mission, is greater than we as a people might understand. It is the sincere belief of the authors that the nobility and greatness of Joseph Smith surpasses the glory that even his most ardent supporters concede.   

Unbeknownst to the general Church membership, the 20th century would witness an organized effort to rewrite Latter-day Saint history from within its own ranks. In a head-to-head, behind-the-scenes-battle, traditional leaders resisted intellectual progressives working in the Church History Department and at BYU, who claimed some forty years ago that it would take a generation to re-educate the Church membership. Where are we in this attempted re-education? What is the New Mormon History, and how does it personally affect you and your family?  

Join us as we explore newly-available diaries, review old books, and bring untold history into the light!  

Leonard Arrington told the Church History Division staff in 1976 that it would “take a generation to educate the Church to historical trends.’” Leonard J. Arrington Diaries, September 23, 1976; Leonard J. Arrington and Gary James Bergera, Confessions of a Mormon Historian: The Diaries of Leonard J. Arrington, 1971-1997, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018), 243, footnote 46. 

Biblical Criticism has led many scholars to determine that the Creation, the story of Adam and Eve, Noah’s worldwide Flood, the account of Jonah and the whale, Moses’ Exodus, and other miraculous events, are merely fictional stories with an allegorical purpose. Where did they come from? Some advocates of Biblical Criticism maintain that many were borrowed from Babylonian and Canaanite pagan myths.” James and Hanna Stoddard

Neville about Bushman

“The article in the SLTribune was an interview with Richard Bushman, the author of Rough Stone Rolling. (see below)

People often ask me about Brother Bushman. I’ve met him, spoken with him briefly a few times, and I think he’s awesome. He’s brilliant, friendly, personable, thoughtful. He’s an excellent historian, of course. I respect his work. But… he’s a historian.

If you’re not already familiar with the term “talent stack,” you should learn about it. Everyone develops different combinations of talents. We have natural interests and aptitudes. We get an education. We gain experience and expertise. We pursue our interests and develop our skills. The sum of all that is our talent stack.

Our talent stacks are part of our filters on the world. Our brains only process what our filters allow to pass through. Some of that is perceptual–what we see, touch, smell, hear, etc.–and part of that is mental or psychological–what confirms our biases, mostly.

For example, our M2C scholars say they “cannot unsee” Mesoamerica when they read the Book of Mormon. Their talent stack–Mesoamerican anthropology, archaeology, etc., combined with an M2C interpretation of the Book of Mormon–literally filters out information and explanations that contradict their M2C beliefs. That’s why they create this incestuous citation cartel and engage in peer approval instead of peer review. It’s all about bias confirmation, but to them, their beliefs are reality and everyone else is wrong. They think they’re doing a favor to Latter-day Saints by “protecting” them from impossible ideas such as the idea that the prophets were correct about the New York Cumorah.

It’s the same with the dominant LDS historians. They have convinced themselves that Joseph Smith didn’t use the plates, that he didn’t really translate anything, and that he merely read words off a seer stone in the hat (SITH). 

Why?

Because they’re historians. Their talent stack involves finding, uncovering, and preserving historical evidence (mainly documents). They consider the context and weigh the credibility of the evidence and reach conclusions. They think they are striving to be “objective” and get at the truth.

But historians are people, subject like everyone else to bias confirmation. Once they reach a conclusion, they profess skepticism or “caution” about documents that contradict their conclusions. They’ll redefine terms to suit their conclusions. They’ll omit inconvenient evidence, etc. For a prime example, notice how the Saints book, volume 1, censored Cumorah from the historical record.

Another good example is the “Early Modern English” theory promoted by Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack. They’re linguists. Plus, they’re members of the citation cartels. Here is an excerpt from Brother Skousen’s book on the King James quotations in the Book of Mormon: ““The Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith.” I’ve discussed before the inherent weakness of intellectuals; they are blind to their own blindness. That’s why, when you read the work of LDS historians and other intellectuals, you can trust, but you better verify. (I wouldn’t even say trust, but that’s how the saying goes. I’d say you can “consider, but verify.” Jonathan Neville Here

Salt Lake Tribune about Bushman

(Photo courtesy of Richard Bushman) Latter-day Saint scholar Richard Bushman. By Peggy Fletcher Stack  | Dec. 31, 2020, 10:11 a.m.| Updated: 2:06 p.m.

Nearing his 90th birthday, Richard Lyman Bushman is the godfather, or, should we say, the patriarch of Mormon history. As an emeritus history professor at Columbia University, with a chair of Mormon studies named in his honor at the University of Virginia, and the author of “Rough Stone Rolling,” the much-heralded biography of church founder Joseph Smith, Bushman is revered as a gentle, thoughtful scholar, who explores the past and present of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with an evenhanded but deft touch. He is married to the inimitable Claudia Lauper Bushman, also an American historian, scholar, and writer who helped found Exponent II, a feminist magazine for Latter-day Saint women. The couple have six children.

Bushman also has been a bishop and stake (regional) president, lay positions of leadership in the Utah-based faith, using his skills to lead and minister congregations of believers.

This far-ranging December interview was edited for clarity and length.

Was your childhood home a bookish environment? Did your parents value intellectual pursuits?

Well, no, it really wasn’t. It was a good, faithful Latter-day Saint home [in Portland, Ore.]. My father was in advertising and was an artist. My mother was a faithful, truly believing Latter-day Saint. They always had an appreciation for the idea of culture, that it was a good thing to do music and go to museums and that sort of thing. But they rarely did it … and I was never aware of my mother or my father reading books. They probably did, but it just didn’t register on me.

So when did you develop this interest in Mormon history or history itself?

The question is: When did I feel that I needed to think about the world to understand it? That started in high school, when I would ponder and write in my journal and try to figure things out. It was just thinking about the meaning of life and how you could be a good person and what was important, why people developed different kinds of social ranks…When I went to college [at Harvard], I started in physics, and then migrated to math. It wasn’t until the middle of my sophomore year that I moved towards history. And it really wasn’t particularly Mormon history, though I did write my undergraduate honors thesis on the expulsion from Jackson County, Missouri, titled “Saints Fled.” When I got to graduate school and was doing history, I was not particularly focused on Mormon history at all. My dissertation was not on a Mormon topic, and it really wasn’t until Leonard Arrington got me involved in the 1970s that I began doing much Mormon history.

Did you ever have any religious rights? When did you get your testimony of the church?

That sounds like if you have a testimony, you can’t have doubts and issues, but that’s a poor way of looking at it. Here’s what happened. I’m at Harvard. I have a lot of good friends in the church. We meet every Sunday. We’re all talk-talk-talk guys. We’re dealing with everything under the sun. My problem is not Joseph Smith or history. My problem is God. Is there enough evidence to believe in God? I was drawn towards agnosticism, where you cannot say one way or another if there’s a God. That all began to happen in the middle of my sophomore year. And that was a little embarrassing because I had been interviewed for a [church] mission in December that year. I went back to school and lost my faith in God and at the same time got a call to the New England Mission, right back where I had been as a student. I told the stake president when he set me apart, you know, “I’m not sure that I believe in God.” And he said, “That’s all right.” When I arrived in Cambridge (Mass.), the mission president, a professor of agriculture from Utah State [University] and so wise, asked, “Do you have a testimony?” I said, “No, I’m not sure I believe in God.” But he didn’t send me home. He said, “Would you read this book and tell me what you think of it?” He handed me a Book of Mormon and sent me on the train to Halifax, which took 20 hours to get there from Boston. I spent the next three months asking every question I could about the Book of Mormon witnesses — Were they deceived? Were they hypnotized? Were they in on the game? After that three months, the mission president came up and asked us to bear our testimonies and, when he came to me, I just said, “I know the Book of Mormon is right.” I was prepared to commit myself, which I did, and never wavered from that. But I have had continual questions ever since. They’ve never gone away.

What did you mean by, the Book of Mormon was “right”?

I don’t know what I meant by that. It was just the word that came to me rather than “true.” When I read the book, I believed those things were happening. I could picture them happening. They seemed very real to me. So I’ve just always said it was right. I have a little difficulty with the word “true.” I am willing to say it’s true for me and it is something I’m willing to grasp. But it’s not something I can persuade everyone, including Harvard professors, to believe in.

(Photo courtesy of Richard Bushman) Claudia and Richard Bushman dance at their San Francisco wedding reception in April 1955.

How do you define truth?

We have a very confined notion of truth that’s really defined for us by science, which requires evidence or proof to be accepted. In ancient times, truth was connected to goodness — truth was what led you to a good life. And, for me, that’s always been more important. I’ve always valued the truth that led me to the right kind of life, the one which makes me a good father and husband and prompts me to help people be good. With that kind of truth, I’m very much willing to say, I know the gospel is true.

Have you changed your mind over the years about any of the church’s founding events?

In terms of the particulars — the overall story about the First Vision, gold plates, translation and a set of revelations to form a church — my view remains pretty much the way it was. But I do think about some things differently. The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text. That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.

But you stand by your view that there were physical gold plates, right?

Yes, I am developing the idea that there are objects that prompt revelation. Objects like the gold plates, the seer stone or Egyptian manuscripts were instrumental, important and significant [in the translation or revelation process], but used differently from the way we would use an object to translate the writings of Augustine, for example.

You are completing a book about the plates, which Smith claimed to have but then returned to an angel. What is your fascination with them?

All they are is an imaginary object. We can’t see them or touch them, but they’re in our heads. Gold plates figure in the imagination of modern Mormons and especially educated Mormons. They’re one of our great fantasies, one of the most fabulous and unbelievable parts of our history. I am really curious about how today’s Latter-day Saints feel about them. If Joseph Smith had kept them, they would have just become another artifact, and he would be like the Bedouin shepherds who found the Dead Sea Scrolls, minor characters in a great archaeological discovery.

How do you — as a person who once studied physics and math — explain the kind of mystical experiences claimed by Smith and his followers, the witnesses, and those who attended the dedication of the Kirtland Temple?

The kind of faith that early Mormons used to have or the kind of experiences that various peoples around the Earth have, where visions and powerful things come to them, are sort of shut down by our insistence on what we call “rational.” I want to leave room for the mystical — not that I necessarily accept everything every mystic says — but I want to be very tolerant of that mode of apprehending world. When people report those experiences, I believe they have to be taken seriously as part of the human experience. It’s like saying, “I’m not going to listen to music or to let myself be moved by romantic feelings.” You’re cutting off part of yourself and your life if you say that’s just beyond human capacity.

Do you think that openness helps you capture the past better?

I have come to believe you should always treat the people that you write about with the same respect you would show them if you knew them in person. That is, you must honor the way they think of themselves. Your first responsibility is to re-create their life as they lived and experienced it, not to judge it. I once told a graduate student that I always felt I had to respect people because they may be dead now, but I might meet them in the hereafter. And I was embarrassed because at my farewell party when I retired from Columbia, she told that story to the whole faculty.

(Rick Egan | Tribune file photo) Historian Richard Bushman gives a talk at Benchmark Books in Salt Lake City in 2018.

You can have respect but don’t you always have to report their flaws as well, like Brigham Young and his views on race?

My heart goes out to Brigham Young right now. He’s becoming the fall guy [for the church’s former racist priesthood-temple ban.] We really need someone to go through his biography and treat the latter half of his life empathetically. But on race, he really was off base. There seemed to be not just a sad acknowledgment of the limitations of African Americans in the church, but sort of a vindictive quality to him. And he spoke with some force. We just have to say he was wrong. But it’s not our job to condemn him or to say, therefore, we’re canceling him, that he’s worthless. We have to keep it all in perspective.

How have you seen the church evolve over the decades on race, feminism or LGBTQ issues?

I subsume this category into what I call cosmopolitanism, which is one of the most powerful influences in the church right now. By cosmopolitanism, I mean that we’re suddenly able to see ourselves as others see us and we can picture ourselves as one religion among a number of religions and a number of viewpoints. We can see how Mormonism looks from a global view. And as soon as we do that, then the way we treat women becomes problematic in terms of the way the educated world in general is looking upon women and race and LGBTQ issues and so on. We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large. At the same time, we need to hold onto our roots in a parochial way. I mean that in a positive sense. We all, even the most cosmopolitan people, need a home base in Mormonism. We’ll keep trying to find words that will allow us to express what we believe in a way that’s acceptable. We want to sound like we’re reasonable souls. I see the merits of that. But that relieves us of the responsibility of defending the things that are uniquely ours — like angels and gold plates — that should be protected.

Do you see the church changing as it moves into new countries?

Of course it’s going to change. The question is: What is doctrine and what is practice? What are the essentials we have to hold onto at all costs? We speak as if essential doctrines are clearly defined and that they will never change, but we can never say what they truly are. We say we believe God and faith are the basis of a good life, but it is always going to be remolded and reshaped. We just have to live with that. In the end, it can be very therapeutic and strengthening if you have to think through what you really believe, what you could stand up for, what you would speak about at the United Nations or to a group of the Harvard faculty. Then you’ve got something you could really hold onto. If your faith is only good in Salt Lake City, but it doesn’t work in London, then you don’t really have a viable faith.

How do you understand the reverence for Latter-day Saint prophets?

If it leads to the idea that prophets never make a mistake, even basic ones, that’s going to get us in trouble. Brigham did make a mistake on race, and saying he didn’t just gets us in more trouble. It’s better to say they do make mistakes like anyone else. But it’s of great importance for us to believe that God is leading us. And that begins with believing God is leading the church, that God is with the church. That makes possible the Mormon miracles — the fact that we work together so well, that we go along with our bishop, even when we don’t like the way he does things. It leads to our unity, our community, our strength. The idea of revelation permeates everything we do. We can’t let go of that.

(Rick Egan | Tribune file photos) Richard and Claudia Bushman in 2018.

Why have you turned to art, helping to launch the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts in New York?

Art is a form of expression, it’s presenting who we are. In my lifetime, I’ve seen Mormon history move from an organized group of a handful of scholars trying to approach the subject but really not being trusted entirely. The “true” Mormon history, the one that was believed academically, was done by non-Mormons. Now, Mormons not only write the history that’s accepted as the “true” history, but those outside the church who write about it have to satisfy Mormon scholars just as we have had to satisfy them. It’s coming to be a realm of real respectability. I see art as a way of telling our story noncombatively. It’s not aggressive. It seemed to me a lovely way to communicate that might be more suitable for the modern times than our kind of heavy-duty preaching and didactic art, which has been our mainstay for so long.

Where do you see the church going forward?

Well, I have these two big words: cosmopolitanism, which I’ve discussed already, and power. We’ve become a very powerful organization, not just because of our wealth — which is a critical part of power — but because of the very loyal members who are in positions of power, especially in the United States, but more and more in other countries, too. In government, business, scholarships, we have men and women who are right in the center of things. We’ve become influential as a people because there are so many Mormons doing good for their communities. That’s a core strength that is unmatched in the world.

Our challenge right now is to know what to do with this power. We have a duty to save the world, but how do we go about that? We’ve done it through missionary work in the past and we will continue to do that, but do we have some larger calling? The ultimate good end of cosmopolitanism is to recognize that the work of God is going to be handled by the 99.9% of the population that’s not Mormon. It can’t just be this tiny speck of a church.

Still, we need a mission that will inspire our young people and everyone who will say, “Yes, my church is taking major action to make the world a better place. And I want to be part of it.”

(Photo courtesy of Richard Bushman) Richard Bushman along with the Boston Stake presidency and high council, 1973-77. Mitt Romney is in upper left. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/