The KEP and the Joseph Smith Papers
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:16 pm
From MADB:
Me:
Pahoran:
LoaP:
It's interesting, and perhaps telling, that Pahoran and LoaP assume that apologetic motives are necessarily "nefarious" or "devious". I tend to think they're sincere (albeit misguided), but I guess LoaP and Pahoran are in a better position to know.
All fun-poking aside, the subject of the KEP and the Joseph Smith Papers is an interesting one. Over at By Common Consent there is a very interesting interview posted in which the JSPP editors said the following:
This despite the fact the the Joseph Smith journals indicate he worked directly on the Alphabet and Grammar in the company of his scribes, he proudly exhibited it to visitors, he kept it in his office, he considered publishing it in the Nauvoo period, and he allowed Phelps to quote it as a demonstration of the prophet's linguistic ability in letters ghostwritten in Joseph Smith's name. I think that if the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers looked into the evidence for themselves, they'd find that the evidence for Joseph Smith's direct authorial involvement is quite clear-cut. But they appear to rely instead on the conclusions of devotees of the Nibley apologetic paradigm (presumably Hauglid).
This raises interesting questions about the non-apologetic work that apologists do in related disciplines. When Bill Hamblin works on Solomon's temple, is his research subtly influenced by apologetic concerns? What about when Dan Peterson works on Islamic texts? We are all shaped by our backgrounds and our philosophical and religious commitments, so it seems only natural that those commitments will influence all of our work in ways that are difficult to detect, even for the author himself. Editors of a project in which people with strong ideological biases are heavily involved have to be extra careful to ensure that those biases do not decide the scope or even the content of the project.
Best,
-Chris
Me:
Chris Smith wrote:Mormon Dude wrote:]Do you think the KEP will be included in one of the volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers?
They were going to be, but I think they are now planned as a separate project... probably because the apologists want to distance Joseph Smith from them and so don't want them implicitly counted among his personal "papers".
Pahoran:
Pahoran wrote:Oh, absolutely. Whatever the Mormons do, there must be a nefarious ulterior motive for it. Someone with your vast experience of publishing large collections of autographic documents can know of a certainty that there couldn't possibly be any other reason.
LoaP:
LifeonaPlate wrote:Your comment about what "apologists" intended came across as implicating devious intentions on the part of JSPP editors to the plate guy.
It's interesting, and perhaps telling, that Pahoran and LoaP assume that apologetic motives are necessarily "nefarious" or "devious". I tend to think they're sincere (albeit misguided), but I guess LoaP and Pahoran are in a better position to know.
All fun-poking aside, the subject of the KEP and the Joseph Smith Papers is an interesting one. Over at By Common Consent there is a very interesting interview posted in which the JSPP editors said the following:
Some of the KEP material has Joseph Smith handwriting and therefore meets our criteria for document inclusion. So this material will also appear in the Documents series. Other KEP manuscripts do not contain Joseph Smith’s handwriting and are of uncertain authorship. Because these documents do not meet our criteria they will not be included in the Documents series.
[...]
Joseph Smith conveyed his views on the national government to W. W. Phelps and assigned him to write them up for a publication, which then appeared under Joseph Smith’s name. Although Joseph Smith did not compose this document, he commissioned it and claimed it as his own. We will publish these types of documents (explaining in an introduction the commission and the ghost-writing).
[...]
We’ve tried to consider everything and we’ve taken a liberal approach to selection, but we do have to draw the line somewhere. And, the burden of proof rests on the demonstration of Joseph Smith authorship. Did Joseph Smith have some kind of authorial oversight controlling the production of the various KEP documents? Or was it more of a collegial endeavor? We don’t know.
This despite the fact the the Joseph Smith journals indicate he worked directly on the Alphabet and Grammar in the company of his scribes, he proudly exhibited it to visitors, he kept it in his office, he considered publishing it in the Nauvoo period, and he allowed Phelps to quote it as a demonstration of the prophet's linguistic ability in letters ghostwritten in Joseph Smith's name. I think that if the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers looked into the evidence for themselves, they'd find that the evidence for Joseph Smith's direct authorial involvement is quite clear-cut. But they appear to rely instead on the conclusions of devotees of the Nibley apologetic paradigm (presumably Hauglid).
This raises interesting questions about the non-apologetic work that apologists do in related disciplines. When Bill Hamblin works on Solomon's temple, is his research subtly influenced by apologetic concerns? What about when Dan Peterson works on Islamic texts? We are all shaped by our backgrounds and our philosophical and religious commitments, so it seems only natural that those commitments will influence all of our work in ways that are difficult to detect, even for the author himself. Editors of a project in which people with strong ideological biases are heavily involved have to be extra careful to ensure that those biases do not decide the scope or even the content of the project.
Best,
-Chris