St. Brigham at Sic et Non

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, it’s pretty clear that Brigham Young was the Donald Trump of the Nineteenth Century (with unlimited theocratic power).

I wonder why the Proprietor loves the one and dislikes the other when they’re both materially the same?

Well, similar in this way, perhaps, but BY was probably both more competent and wealthier (for his day).

[Gadianton]

I wonder whether there is any kind of sociological analysis that can pin down precisely what drives this mindset

I think we can wrap this one up quickly, Reverend. Think about how much money a premium defense attorney rakes in creating the most favorable interpretation of facts that they can get past a judge and jury.

Now think about how much the Saints pay in sunk costs: tithing, meetings, and all kinds of other bs.

When the Church had their own compromise history written, they had lawyers write it, not historians.

[Kishkumen]

I think we can wrap this one up quickly, Reverend. Think about how much money a premium defense attorney rakes in creating the most favorable interpretation of facts that they can get past a judge and jury.

Now think about how much the Saints pay in sunk costs: tithing, meetings, and all kinds of other bs.

When the Church had their own compromise history written, they had lawyers write it, not historians.

It is a point that bears repeating, no doubt.

[Gadianton]

If I were a faithful scholar, here's the calculus that would run through my head as I set out to make my case -- I mean, write history.

I'd be on the lookout for some fault with BY that nobody had yet uncovered. Let's say I discovered an overlooked journal. Let's say within the journal was the account of Brigham losing his temper and beating a neighbor with his cane. I'd publish it and accept it at face value. I'd try to carefully make it look like honesty compelled me to admit to it, while deep down feeling like I'd discovered gold. I wouldn't draw too much attention to it. All this would be to buy credibility so that I could, for instance, deny involvement in MMM. I'd want to admit to uncomfortable facts that aren't material to the case in order to guard core material as much as possible. And then second order apologists, such as DCP, would be the one to connect the dots -- "you can't say this guy is biased, he's the one who published the cane account and in my view, accepted it rather credulously."

[Kishkumen]

If I were a faithful scholar, here's the calculus that would run through my head as I set out to make my case -- I mean, write history.

I'd be on the lookout for some fault with BY that nobody had yet uncovered. Let's say I discovered an overlooked journal. Let's say within the journal was the account of Brigham losing his temper and beating a neighbor with his cane. I'd publish it and accept it at face value. I'd try to carefully make it look like honesty compelled me to admit to it, while deep down feeling like I'd discovered gold. I wouldn't draw too much attention to it. All this would be to buy credibility so that I could, for instance, deny involvement in MMM. I'd want to admit to uncomfortable facts that aren't material to the case in order to guard core material as much as possible. And then second order apologists, such as DCP, would be the one to connect the dots -- "you can't say this guy is biased, he's the one who published the cane account and in my view, accepted it rather credulously."

There are historians who even now work strategically knowing that they have to be very careful lest the allergic reaction of LDS people and, even more so, apologists result in banishment from the circle of trust. The end result really has to be faith promoting. I simply could not take it. Look at the reaction Benjamin Park got for his book on Nauvoo. He gets some third-rate excuse for a review, which is essentially TBM bellyaching about how he betrayed the Prophet, instead of sincere appreciation for his scholarship. And it is a travesty, in my book, that lawyers are the ones to handle LDS history. What could be more revealing of intent?

[hauslern]

From "How to Read a Mormon Scholar"

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_131.pdf

Sam Taylor

"You must understand that the aim of the either/or scholar is not to tell the truth, but to keep people happy. The newest sin of Mormonism, and possibly the greatest, is to be Negative (which is even more immoral, if possible, than drinking coffee). Heaven help the scholar accused of this heresy.
He is in danger of having his picture turned to the wall, his buttons cut off, and being drummed out of the Positive Thinking Corps. The either/or craven has completely capitulated; he is knight-errant of the citadel. But the
threat of the Negative label affects the work of all but a valiant few.

In rejecting the either/or apologist, you must not make the mistake of throwing out the pseudo-either/or scholar as well. He is simply adopting the protective coloration, while actually having a concern for the truth and devising ingenious methods for inserting the real scoop without endangering his status (of which more later). The pseudo-either/or scholar sometimes reveals his position by his reference to "the Prophet Joseph," or simply "the Prophet." However, the real test is the extent of his astounding alternatives."

[Kishkumen]

From "How to Read a Mormon Scholar"

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_131.pdf

Sam Taylor

"You must understand that the aim of the either/or scholar is not to tell the truth, but to keep people happy. The newest sin of Mormonism, and possibly the greatest, is to be Negative (which is even more immoral, if possible, than drinking coffee). Heaven help the scholar accused of this heresy.
He is in danger of having his picture turned to the wall, his buttons cut off, and being drummed out of the Positive Thinking Corps. The either/or craven has completely capitulated; he is knight-errant of the citadel. But the
threat of the Negative label affects the work of all but a valiant few.

In rejecting the either/or apologist, you must not make the mistake of throwing out the pseudo-either/or scholar as well. He is simply adopting the protective coloration, while actually having a concern for the truth and devising ingenious methods for inserting the real scoop without endangering his status (of which more later). The pseudo-either/or scholar sometimes reveals his position by his reference to "the Prophet Joseph," or simply "the Prophet." However, the real test is the extent of his astounding alternatives."

Much more eloquently put than I could muster. It would drive me crazy. I don’t think I would like the earnest enthusiasm of the many members who sit around wondering about things like how Noah fit all those animals in the ark, or dream of Trump’s second term in office. The problem with being active LDS is that you are often forced to endure that kind of depressing nonsense. If you were actually revered by people with such views, that would be even harder to stomach. It would be solid grounds for self doubt, however poorly deserved.

[Gadianton]

Look at the reaction Benjamin Park got for his book on Nauvoo. He gets some third-rate excuse for a review, which is essentially TBM bellyaching about how he betrayed the Prophet, instead of sincere appreciation for his scholarship

I don't know anything about this episode. In your view, was he doomed prior to writing the book based on what faithful 'scholars' knew about his politics, or was it it gut reaction to the book, knowing nothing beforehand about the author?

[Kishkumen]

I don't know anything about this episode. In your view, was he doomed prior to writing the book based on what faithful 'scholars' knew about his politics, or was it it gut reaction to the book, knowing nothing beforehand about the author?

It was Susan Black’s review at Interpreter. She and Ben had an amicable relationship before the book. I think he was somewhat surprised the review was so biased and poorly done. According to her, he had a duty to paint the prophet in heroic hues, and she felt his book was a betrayal.

[Dr. Shades]

According to her, he had a duty to paint the prophet in heroic hues, and she felt his book was a betrayal.

If you believe the truth is a betrayal, then you’re on the wrong side.