Comments on: Notes on the 2008 Bushman Seminar (Part 2)

By: Mark p

Mark p — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:17:08 +0000

Ben,
Thanks for posting your notes on the conference. Good luck on you PhD!

Mark

By: Times & Seasons » Posts You Might Have Missed 5

Times & Seasons » Posts You Might Have Missed 5 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:50:16 +0000

[...] the “spiritual eyes” statements sometimes attributed to the Three Witnesses. The Part 2 presentations all sound interesting, but Spencer Fluhman’s consideration of Nauvoo-era plural marriage is [...]

By: Best of the Week 4: Academic LDS : Mormon Metaphysics

Best of the Week 4: Academic LDS : Mormon Metaphysics — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:44:52 +0000

[...] Bushman Seminar Pt 1 and Pt 2 notes by Ben at Juvenile Instructor. Sounds like the focus was more on how religious educators can [...]

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:31:33 +0000

Mark (#39), we are left with something of a tough predicament. The biggest mistake has been for people to isolate various temple rituals and assign specific theological significance to them; when in actuality, Joseph Smith viewed them all as part of the same process. As adoptions (which child-to-parent sealings were called) were limited to the temples our demographic data is only the 120 or so executed at Nauvoo then the practice as started back up in St. George.

You are correct that work for ancestors was complicated as priesthood heirship was viewed to be imperatively important and not to be left up to the chance that our relatives might merit the fullness of the priesthood.

Further, while Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff (circa 1894), and Thomas S. Monson have distinct conceptions of sealing praxis (and consequent theological ramifications), I’m not sure that it is appropriate to declare the primacy of our modern methods over Joseph’s or Brigham’s in a historical perspective (though for us as members of the modern church, yes) by declaring that later leaders “figured it out.” You are correct however, that what we would conceive as the family tree model has its roots in Woodruff’s declaration in 1894. If this was all that was implied by Fluhman, than chock my comments up to the peril of responding to an incomplete characterization.

By: Mark Ashurst-McGee

Mark Ashurst-McGee — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:29:12 +0000

Re #24 and # 28: Yes, proxy work for dead ancestors, but are they sealing them the way we do now? in the family tree method? I thought that took some time to figure out. Weren’t they or at least some of the ancestors sealed directly to the living descendants?

John, #7, if you are still out there, I thought Spencer was saying that JS did not ask for Helen. I thought he said the sealing was Heber’s idea, in order to link their families, and so Heber made the offer. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

By: Mark Ashurst-McGee

Mark Ashurst-McGee — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:18:38 +0000

Steve (in #8), I forgive you.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:51:54 +0000

Clark, I think that also ties into the difficulty of involving CES folks, etc. in that some may take certain views as “official” or teach them as such, when odds are views will continue to adapt over time, especially historical views causing more trouble in the future. What is needed, in my mind, is a clear explanation on what has happened in view of LDS history, how it relates to our conception of a covenant people or dispensation, and how we can expect it to continue to adapt or change in the future. It’s method and worldview more than the “historical facts” [read: interpretations] that seems key to me. More on this soon.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:09:15 +0000

J (#22) that certainly is a danger. (i.e. that someone in attempting to resolve or reconcile an issue develops a new novel theology) But isn’t that part of why it is difficult? You have to be familiar first with the norms of acceptable Church theology and then try to tie the history into acceptable explanations that you feel are true to the evidence.

By: Kent

Kent — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:07:47 +0000

Ben,

Then maybe we could both be happy if only one or two papers dealt with polemical narratives? What I do want to see more of is a well attended seminar by CES employees where such things are discussed.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:56:50 +0000

Kent: I could agree with you on almost everything until the last part of your last sentence. As one who enjoys the more analytical and scholarly history, I am looking forward to its return next summer when Givens and Grow take over.

I do hope, however, that this kind of approach will find some venue in which it can continue.