182: Perspectives – Richard Bushman

I think a number of issues were misrepresented by the interviewer in the podcast. The essay on LDS.org was an historical overview of the issue and makes clear we do not know it’s origins, only that it was fully implemented by Brigham Young, but did not disavow the ban as racist (which is a common and clear misreading of what was actually stated and results, I think, from an uncareful reading of the essay). It disavowed the speculations regarding the reasons for the priesthood ban, not the ban itself.

There were some other points as well that I think were misstated in terms of the expectations of the Church. The idea that gays are expected to act as if they aren’t gay seemed a bizarre statement. It suggests those experiencing same-sex attraction should be treated differently from heterosexuals who are asked to not act on their heterosexual feelings that are immoral. You seem to want to carve out an exception for gay *behavior* as opposed to heterosexual behavior that is considered immoral under gods laws (such as adultery or fornication) and that they are clearly asked not to flaunt or promote or or engage in/mentor in Church gatherings. And it applies to 100% of heterosexuals in one way or another–some are unable to marry at all and others are certainly tempted by adultery and fornication regardless. It’s not different from anything that heterosexuals are asked to do in “hiding” their heterosexuality. It’s a non-sequitur. The Church asks all those who do not obey the commandments to leave their sins at home and not present them as normative while being welcome at church at the same time. The standard is the same.

It is also clear that the blessings given in the early days of the Church were not priesthood ordinances, but done by the power (and gift of faith)–the gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of healing are not limited to male members. The Prophet Joseph couldn’t have been more clear on the matter as regards the fact that those blessings would flow from faith, not priesthood ordination.

I’ll leave it at that, but I thought it important to point out the seeming incongruities I found in the assumptions made by the interviewee.

I also think you misunderstand the concept of doctrine (as opposed to policy that are implemented under the general doctrine). For example, the doctrine of polygamy has always included both it’s approval (if commanded by God) and it’s disapproval (an “abomination” as the Book of Mormon calls it) when not commanded by God. The same would be true of the priesthood ban. The doctrine ALWAYS foresaw a time when all restrictions would be removed. So the doctrine didn’t change, but the policy under the doctrine that was always envisioned by the doctrine itself.

I agreed with most of what Richard Bushman had to say, though I think he’s developed a habit of being a bit PC so as to not offend anyone (which sometimes can come across as being ashamed of the more difficult, but clear, doctrines of the LDS church). As an example, I agree that all should be welcome in the Church, regardless of sinful status, but that’s not a statement that we should make everyone feel comfortable in their sins (not something I think Bushman was advocating, but it was hard to tell from his sometimes obscure answers). It’s not the mission of the Church.