You know how sometimes you start a research project and about 2 days into it, you stop and think, "Damn, this is a waste of time. Better start looking for something else." That is how I view apologies for Joseph Smith's behavior as a married man. I'm sorry for people that have to spend time on this desperate, fruitless road.
Best of luck to all of them.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
I regret my previous post. It was rude. Who am I to judge what someone chooses to study.
Sorry, Don.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
I first of all want to thank you for your original post and for your call for greater civility in discussions online about Mormonism; you seem to be one of the people who practices what they preach when it comes to having honest civil debate online and I think your good reputation in all Mormon online, whether believing or otherwise is well earned. However having read the polygamy debate threads that inspired this thread, I must admit that I see things rather differently.
I completely understand why you think a variety of perspectives when it comes to Mormon history, but I think that your example to scientists is a poor analogy, biologists wouldn't for instance be willing to change the definition of Biology to incorporate religious fundamentalists who believe in a literal Adam and Eve, physicists wouldn't change the definition of Physics to include young earth creationism, archeologists wouldn't change the definition of Archeology to include theories like those espoused in TV shows like Ancient Aliens and I don't think anything is lost from the discussion by excluding such fringe and partisan perspectives. Of course differing perspectives are welcome, I would hope we all want to discover more about the past, but blatant twisting of facts to fit predetermined conclusions adds about as much to the conversion as the Book of Mormon does to the study of ancient Mesoamerican culture, not much at all.
You're right that the records and journals of faithful Mormons who recorded their experiences really increase our knowledge of early Mormon history, it's a shame that the LDS Church, holding most of this material decided to hide it from historians for years and squirrelled it away; sometimes even from family members who had donated these treasures on the understanding that they would continue to have access to these records, which was subsequently denied. If the LDS Church didn't have such an authoritarian and strict approach to controlling resources that would shed more light on the past then we'd have had a much greater understanding of our collective religious history already. It should also be noted the punitive measures that the LDS Church has taken against scholars who have been so instrumental uncovering the past, D. Michael Quinn payed a heavy price for his commitment to publishing about post-manifesto polygamy among other subjects. It is the price that people like him paid that has really lead the way for greater transparency today so that now Mormon scholars can engage in more open discussion even if there is still the threat hanging over their heads, I guess they know how Joseph's spiritual wives felt with the threat of that drawn sword. Ultimately the Church has been compelled to publish the recent essays and members aren't being automatically shunned for having concerns and questions about questionable episodes involving the leadership of the LDS Church and its past which is a good thing.
I want to thank you for all of the research that you've done and that you've shared with the world, but if I understand correctly then you are responsible in a large part for the vast amount of research in Brian Hales works on polygamy; my confession is that I wish you'd actually published all of that research yourself because I have the feeling you would have produced a much more credible, reasonable and balanced work than Hales is apparently capable of. I don't know the man, all I know is from reading some of his writings and an account of a rather unpleasant episode about him I heard from a friend, neither of which have impressed me much.
There is however always going to be debate and I would argue there has to be honesty about the approach that is being taken to history, to uncovering the truth and the problem that I see with the apologists is that they claim to be playing by the same rules, when even a cursory examination of their arguments reveals that they are not. If you would like an example I recommend the exchange between Jenkins and Hamblin which just shows how far this delusional approach to reality can go. For apologists offended by Jenkins' frankness in that debate, they may come up with some explanation along the lines that he must be an anti-mormon or that he was being unnecessarily rude, but I think it is obvious to any objective observer that Jenkins was actually quite restrained in that exchange and he made it very clear that it was not about hating Mormons, but rather it was about his resentment at the ridiculous suggestion that "Ancient American Book of Mormon Studies" was a legitimate field, because it simply isn't; in this exchange about Hales, I see a similar theme. I don't see anyone criticising the vast amount of research that Hales' polygamy book has brought to the discussion, in large part due to your hard work Don, what people are disputing is the rather useless and unconvincing argumentation that he adds to that material; sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.
If there is a history of any voices being drowned out in Mormon discussions it has not been the voices of those who like Hales are engaged in apologetic defences that attempt to have their cake and eat it, continuing to promote a white washed version of history, even if the paint is ever so slightly watered down, no, those who have found themselves being tossed overboard, ostracised from the group are those like D. Michael Quinn, whose career the LDS Church punitively destroyed. Hales may offer "possibilities" but they are as useful to the discussion as a young earth creationist's possibilities would be to a scientists study of the age of the earth. I welcome differing opinions, differing perspectives and I recognise that there will always be disagreements in this field, but Hales arguments are just embarrassing and the vitriol he spews at people who disagree with him shows how incapable he is of engaging in an honest debate about this subject. From what you've said he may be maturing to acknowledging that his rather implausible arguments aren't the most likely ones, but I'm not holding my breath.
Personally, I feel disappointed that a great opportunity for openness was missed with the LDS Church's essay on polygamy and it was potentially a direct result of Brian Hales involvement in its creation; given the LDS Church's past predisposition to whitewashed history it doesn't surprise me though that his approach would appeal to them, all they wanted was an "expert" who could gloss it over in the most favourable terms possible while appearing to address the issue. In your opinion what is the goal in Mormon history? Is to gain an accurate understanding of what actually occurred? If you agree, then surely some historians are going to be closer to encapsulating that than others? When believing members are restricted from coming to unfavourable conclusions with the threat of excommunication including all of the social effects that entails and are endorsed when they promulgate fanciful interpretations then it isn't surprising that this would be the result, is it?
I have no problem with a D. Michael Quinn, a Todd Compton or a Richard Bushman contributing to the literature and to the discussion, but FAIR, the old Maxwell Institute and the Mormon Interpreter despite large amounts of money, access to vast resources in monetary terms as well as documents have completely failed to justify their own existence in any sphere other than a propagandistic faith promoting industry which has served some of those "unpaid" high priests of pseudo-intellectualism very well indeed. I also feel that the Church's stamp of approval in the form of the essay has emboldened Brian Hales to be particularly unaccommodating to differing opinions, but maybe he's had a change of heart, I haven't been interested in looking at his contributions in a long time, maybe I'll have a look at his more recent work.
I understand your desire to have productive conflict within Mormon history, but looking to the past the future isn't bright. From the beginning of Mormonism controlling history was a preoccupation of Joseph Smith he even died trying to suppress facts that he'd publicly denied to the Church as a whole; the Church has been whitewashing its history since its inception and no doubt will continue to well into the future. It's nice Jews have a tradition of discussion and argument in the Talmud and Mishnah, but Mormonism certainly does not.
I don't think anyone is arguing that apologetics like that which FAIR, Mormon Interpreter and people like Hales engage in doesn't have its place, but their contributions to the discussion have to be considered in the light of the amount that they truly bring to the table in terms of helping us understand more about the past. I actually feel they are continuing a long Mormon tradition that started with Joseph Smith of accusing those who aren't part of the tribe of everything imaginable from anti-mormonism, to dishonesty and wanting to sin, but why? Joseph had no qualms with silencing dissent. Religious conflict with neighbours and apostates is something that has been extensively documented and no doubt helps with cohesion of the group as a whole and is arguably a reason for Mormonism surviving as well as it has today, for good or for bad. Maybe it's one of the reasons Joseph in his later canonized version of the First Vision included such a controversial and divisive statement about those outside the group into Jesus' mouth?
The faith promoting approach of apologists, as exemplified by one admitting recently words to the effect that it was more important to protect faulty arguments within the group and to attack correct points made by those who aren't, because loyalty to the tribe is more important than the truth, just highlights this point. I'm sure many Mormon leaders throughout the years have encouraged and promoted such thinking which plays such a large part in the difficulties that are going to come up in conversations like this with believing Mormons; anyone interested in honest debate is going to be frustrated and many Mormons are going to naturally want to censor and control the conversation and why not? The one true church operates that way, so it must be right.
This tribalism is unfortunately one of the bi-products of religion in general and isn't exclusive to Mormonism, although the LDS Church has benefited and will continue to do so well into the future, I'm sure. I would say though, anyone arguing that this tribalism is a virtue, has to account for the nasty side that rears its ugly head from time to time and for the real life consequences past, present and future.
I view you as a modern day BH Roberts within Mormonism, Don, someone who is personally willing to explore topics wherever that may lead you and I look forward to your future contributions to our understanding of Mormonism.
J.R. wrote:Daniel C. Peterson - affectionately known as "Tapir Dan" by some
K wrote:LOL. Well, given the fact that DCP made a point of misrepresenting Jeremy's methods and intentions, I say he got off pretty lightly.
Tapir Dan is hilarious, and pretty well encapsulates so much of the ludicrousness of classic-FARMS apologetics.
Or don't you think, Bill?
I think J.R.'s statement clearly demonstrates that your comment about him having "the best intentions" is wrong, regardless of whether you find it "hilarious."
Prester John wrote:I think J.R.'s statement clearly demonstrates that your comment about him having "the best intentions" is wrong, regardless of whether you find it "hilarious."
One might say the same thing about the "Metcalfe is Butthead" incident. Brother Hamblin probably thinks he had the best of intentions, too. Regardless, the faux-outrage over "Tapir Dan" is in itself rather hilarious.