DiscussMormonism.com

I've exchanged emails over the past few days with a Mormon historian whom I shall not name, since he does not like message boards and would not like to even be mentioned here, let alone drawn into such a discussion. This active, believing Mormon historian read a paper I had written and indicated to me that he felt the paper was un-academic. He said this because the paper argues at some length against the work of Nibley and briefly comments that apologetic concerns have hindered the progress of historical understanding. This historian felt that an "academic perspective" will ignore or suspend pro/con debates about faith and historicity, will avoid anything polemical, and will focus instead on things like personalities, motivations, and story-telling. I wrote the following in reply:

I don't think I can be satisfied with limiting myself to an entirely 'suspensive' approach, especially since I ultimately want my work to have relevance to popular discourse as well as to academic circles. But I also have tried to leave pro/con debates mostly on the message boards, where they belong. If I have failed to do that here, it is good to have that brought to my attention.

Of course, one cannot always leave questions of historicity aside, especially since they have direct bearing on one's methodology in studying the text and its meaning to the prophet and his scribes. In this respect I think a suspensive approach is impossible (or at least seriously deficient). I can certainly understand and appreciate the view that an "academic" or "scholarly" approach to religious history must be neutral with respect to questions of faith, but it is not a view with which I agree. I am, nevertheless, willing to disagree agreeably and to make the effort to meet folks like yourself halfway wherever possible.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this historian is simply wrong. How can one tell stories or evaluate motivations and personalities if one is suspending judgment on issue of faith and historicity? Doesn't the question of whether Joseph was a prophet or a fraud affect our judgment of what the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham were meant to accomplish?

Perhaps more importantly, are historians here to tell stories that only other historians will care about, or to tell stories that are relevant to the general public? Are they here to unearth obscure historical facts that have no connection to present living? Or to unearth historical facts that help us answer big questions about meaning, existence, and what the future holds? Is not the point of story-telling to explore such questions?

I must admit that at first I was a bit offended to be told that my paper was un-academic, especially since it was basically an extended text-critical analysis that wasted no more than a hundred words on anything resembling rhetoric or polemic. I can hardly think of anything more academic. The offense faded as I realized that what this historian was really saying is that he's a firm believer in a particular philosophy of history, and that he thinks that only authors adhering to that philosophy have a legitimate claim to academic publication. As I explained to him in my email, I can sympathize with his view. But it also smacks to me a little too much of political correctness. I don't feel that the most important questions the public faces should be off-limits to those of us who might actually have the tools to address them.

I'm interested to hear you folks' thoughts on this.

-Chris

Cris,
What the hell different reaction did you expect? Didn't you realize this guy was defending his turf?
Whomever he might be, with this much bias and arrogance how can you discuss any matter?

You're right, Chris, and the Mormon historian is wrong.

Was Joseph Smith a fraud? The vast majority of non-Mormon historians would answer that question differently than the Mormon historian with whom you are corresponding. Of course he'd rather bypass it, even though Smith's motivations cannot be legitimately discussed without assessing Smith's reliability.

For a bit more on the topic, read Chap's thread, "Bypassing the Question."

KA

CaliforniaKid wrote: Doesn't the question of whether Joseph was a prophet or a fraud affect our judgment of what the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham were meant to accomplish?

It would help a lot to know who the historian is, but nevertheless. Non-Mormon historians generally don't make prophet/fraud judgements. In fact, I don't know of any who have, but I'm speaking here of "real historians" with Ph.Ds in history, who write or teach history as a profession. Dan Vogel suggested the "pious fraud" idea, but I'm quite sure you'll never find direct charges of fraud in Brent Metcalfe's New Approaches. The insinuation of potential fraud is of course there.

Jan Shipps is probably the best known non-Mormon historian in Mormon academic circles, but I've never read where she called Joseph Smith a fraud. (See her book, Mormonism, for example, as a work highly praised even by believing Mormon historians)

And also:

The Prophet Puzzle: Interpretive Essays on Joseph Smith

In the editor's brief but pointed introduction, Waterman quotes Jan Shipps' now-popular admonition that the "mystery of Mormonism cannot be solved until we solve the mystery of Joseph Smith" (x). While no one in this volume claims to have resolved the "prophet puzzle" (that nomenclature is Shipps'), it is to the credit of the editor and each of these contributors that this single volume brings together under one cover a most valuable set of views that will comprise new grist for the mills of the grinding of new grain on this subject which will almost certainly bring to light a prompt investigation of even greater complexities and wrinkles in the character and face of the Mormon founder/prophet. This single volume will be an indispensable volume to bring new comers to the topic and problem up-to-speed in a relative hurry. All the interpreters have transcended—each in his or her own style—the old, simplistic dichotomy of either "fraud" or "prophet of God," and most of them were carefully self-conscious and self-critical in their efforts to do so. It is and will continue to be a valuable, substantive contribution on the matter.

(Emphasis added)

Message boards are certainly different to writing good history, because the historian has to consider all possible factors and interpretations, and if he/she takes one narrow view or interpretation their credibility will wane. So a good historian has to tread very carefully, doing as much to avoid partisan interpretations (pro or con, though making readers aware of them).

Two important points here.

1) Dr. Lawrence Foster is another non-Mormon historian who has written a lot about Mormonism and Joseph Smith, and not only did he avoid any charge of fraud, but suggested that Joseph Smith's first vision may well have occurred. That's not being partisan, but simply stating a possibility as there's no way of disproving it.

2) D. Michael Quinn, variously acknowledged as "the most prolific" living Mormon historian, has never made the fraud charge, but in fact to the contrary claims that Joseph Smith "was a prophet just like Moses" (In personal essays, not historical writing)

So it is not the historians place to declare: "This man [or religion] is a fraud." Should they do so, their academic objectivity will immediately suffer possible terminal damage. That doesn't mean a historian cannot have a personal view, but he/she must also consider all "historical views" and protray them as accurately as possible. A personal view may come across too strongly if one is not careful, but an essential part of the historian's craft is to be careful, and to avoid as much as possible injecting that personal view into the wider scope of history.

Is arguing about historicity unscholarly?

No.

Ray A wrote:... it is not the historians place to declare: "This man [or religion] is a fraud." Should they do so, their academic objectivity will immediately suffer possible terminal damage.

Like Ray A, I am not wholly ignorant of what professional historians do.

I have written at some length on relevant topics in my 'why bypass the question' thread. Here I will just say:

(a) I agree that historians are not specially qualified (as professional historians) to pass judgment on the truth or falsity of purely religious claims (as, e.g. that there is a deity, that there are three degrees of glory after death, that baptism for the dead does them good, etc,). To that extent they are not professionally qualified to say whether a person who makes assertions about religious matters (we could say "a prophet") is fraudulent in respect of those claims.

(b) On the other hand it is perfectly proper for historians to investigate whether the person who first published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fraud or not when he said it was a genuine document revealing a secret Jewish plot for world domination. It is perfectly proper for historians to investigate whether the person who first brought forth the Donation of Constantine was a fraud or not when he said it was a genuine decree by the emperor Constantine transferring authority over the western Roman empire to the Pope. it is perfectly proper for historians to investigate whether the person who first published the Book of Mormon was a fraud or not when he said it was a genuine ancient document revealing a previously unknown aspect of the history of the Americas. It is even perfectly proper for historians to investigate and discuss the extent to which the evidence connected with the varying accounts of the so-called First Vision suggest that those accounts are later fabrications rather than an account of an experience (of whatever origin) that Smith actually had in 1820.

I do agree that historians who write about religion tend to skirt round such questions as whether the Book of Mormon is a fraudulent production. But that is I suspect less because they feel unqualified to judge such questions than because raising them makes academic relations with LDS scholars more difficult than they would prefer them to be, and exposes them to the charge (not necessarily accurate) of being more interested in opposing the LDS faith than in studying it historically.

Chap wrote: it is perfectly proper for historians to investigate whether the person who first published the Book of Mormon was a fraud or not when he said it was a genuine ancient document revealing a previously unknown aspect of the history of the Americas.

Well, strictly speaking, that's going into archaeology as well, and we all know what Michael Coe has said, for example, but it's a view a historian would have to include in any assessment of whether the Book of Mormon is history, along with those of Mormon archaeologists, then let the reader decide.

Chap wrote:It is even perfectly proper for historians to investigate and discuss the extent to which the evidence connected with the varying accounts of the so-called First Vision suggest that those accounts are later fabrications rather than an account of an experience (of whatever origin) that Smith actually had in 1820.

And this has been debated ad infinitum. Both pro and con views would have to be included in any historical assessment.

Chap wrote:I do agree that historians who write about religion tend to skirt round such questions as whether the Book of Mormon is a fraudulent production. But that is I suspect less because they feel unqualified to judge such questions than because raising them makes academic relations with LDS scholars more difficult than they would prefer them to be, and exposes them to the charge (not necessarily accurate) of being more interested in opposing the LDS faith than in studying it historically.

It not only makes it difficult with LDS scholars, but the wider historical profession. This isn't only about "staying onside" with LDS scholars, it's about "staying onside" with academic peers who judge their works based on how accurately and fairly they have written. In fact, I would even argue that if a non-Mormon historian was "sucking up" to LDS scholars to "keep them onside", that too would be immediately recognised by academic peers. Flattery doesn't easily escape attention.

CaliforniaKid wrote:He said this because the paper argues at some length against the work of Nibley and briefly comments that apologetic concerns have hindered the progress of historical understanding.

So far, so good.

This historian felt that an "academic perspective" will ignore or suspend pro/con debates about faith and historicity, will avoid anything polemical, and will focus instead on things like personalities, motivations, and story-telling.

You did suspend pro/con debates about faith and historicity, etc. You merely argued against the work of Nibley and briefly commented that apologetic concerns have hindered the progress of historical understanding.

It was apples and oranges.

Like solomarineris intimated, he was probably a Nibley fan and you stepped on his turf.

This professor is out to lunch.

Dr. Shades wrote:

CaliforniaKid wrote:He said this because the paper argues at some length against the work of Nibley and briefly comments that apologetic concerns have hindered the progress of historical understanding.

So far, so good.

This historian felt that an "academic perspective" will ignore or suspend pro/con debates about faith and historicity, will avoid anything polemical, and will focus instead on things like personalities, motivations, and story-telling.

You did suspend pro/con debates about faith and historicity, etc. You merely argued against the work of Nibley and briefly commented that apologetic concerns have hindered the progress of historical understanding.

It was apples and oranges.

Like solomarineris intimated, he was probably a Nibley fan and you stepped on his turf.

This professor is out to lunch.

That's why I think it would be helpful to know who the historian is (though Chris said he can't reveal this), which comments he criticised, specifically, and the context of Chris's remarks. If Chris gave a personal view without supporting views, then he could be open to criticism.

For example, a reference to Kent Jackson's criticisms of Nibley would be helpful (even if to reinforce Chris's personal view):

Kent P. Jackson, "Review of Old Testament and Related Studies, by Hugh Nibley," Brigham Young University Studies 28:4 (1988): 114–119. A rebuttal to Jackson was published in Louis Midgley, "Hugh Winder Nibley: Bibliography and Register," in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 1:lxxi–lxxiii}.

There are some missing contexts here, and Chris will have to provide more information, perhaps like the "offending comments", or the comments which this scholar took umbrage at, and whether he was the only one who did so.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Is arguing about historicity unscholarly?
No.

I agree there, what unscholarly is getting defensive and avoiding the issues or undermining people you correspond with.
In case you don't know, that is a sign of insecurity or insincerity.
I probably have quarter of California kid's patience, it wouldn't be a dialog there.
I can be humbled by some world renown scientists taking time and talking to me, at times
listening my hypothesis.
But of course that quality requires a great measure of self confidence, what this guy lacks.