Part 1: The L-Skinny is Far, Far Greater....

[_beastie]

Thanks for the link, Tom, I'll be reading it tonight.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You seem to be implying that Clayton outright fabricated this statement, even the portion contained in quotation marks.

No I'm not.

I presume he's actually quoting something, and that he's actually quoting something by Professor Midgley.

But I don't know the original context, and the quoted phrase itself doesn't help much with that.

I feel certain that you must have access to the unpublished talk.

I don't believe that I own a copy, if that's what you're suggesting.

There might be a copy in BYU Special Collections, but I can't check tonight and I won't have time to check tomorrow. Professor Midgley almost certainly has a copy, but his current GPS coordinates place him in a location that it would be ghastly and inappropriate to name and that does not facilitate checking on this matter.

[_Tom]

For family home evening last night, my family listened to Peter Novick's 1989 SLC Sunstone Symposium address, "Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New." His evaluation of Prof. Midgley begins at approximately 50:00. After listening to Prof. Novick's definitions of Old and Mormon History, we voted to sustain the Old Mormon History. We would like to see more of it. Here is Prof. Novick's description of the Old Mormon History:

"The very dogmatism...of the Old Historians provides at least a sketch of a paradigmatic historical discipline. They have a consensual research agenda--producing work which is faith promoting. They have a consistent metatheoretical and ontological standpoint based on neoorthodox, literal, correlated Mormon doctrine. They have relatively clear criteria for evaluating evidence--privileging accounts and sacred texts (revelations by those authorized to receive them, and testimony in the Mormon sense); disregarding, in good conscience, evidence that contradicted these; [and] disregarding, in particular, reports from anti-Mormon sources. The items within their scientific vocabulary--let me again use the example of prophet and revelation--have clear and unambiguous meaning. They have the strength of will, the requisite certitude to insist that discrepant or anomalous findings which contradict the governing paradigm be swept aside. They also have the strength of will, and certainly the temperament, to insist, as a condition of entry to the legitimate community of discourse, on conformity to the dictates of the paradigm. All of these, I submit, are the preconditions for establishing a paradigmatic discipline of Mormon history capable of generating objective findings."

[_harmony]

For family home evening last night, my family listened to Peter Novick's 1989 SLC Sunstone Symposium address, "Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New."

My children would have been accusing me of child abuse, and I'd have to agree with them.

His evaluation of Prof. Midgley begins at approximately 50:00. After listening to Prof. Novick's definitions of Old and Mormon History, we voted to sustain the Old Mormon History. We would like to see more of it. Here is Prof. Novick's description of the Old Mormon History:

"The very dogmatism...of the Old Historians provides at least a sketch of a paradigmatic historical discipline. They have a consensual research agenda--producing work which is faith promoting.

Nevermind the truth... find that which is faith promoting. Okay, got it.

They have a consistent metatheoretical and ontological standpoint based on neoorthodox, literal, correlated Mormon doctrine.

In other words, the outcome has already been decided, make the history fit it. Okay, got it.

They have relatively clear criteria for evaluating evidence--privileging accounts and sacred texts (revelations by those authorized to receive them, and testimony in the Mormon sense);

Which accounts? Which sacred texts? Are there readily available to anyone, or are we talking the Vault again?

...disregarding, in good conscience, evidence that contradicted these;

Of course. Anything contradictory would not be faith-promoting and would therefore be dismissed even if it was true.

...[and] disregarding, in particular, reports from anti-Mormon sources.

Because they, of course, have their own agenda. While it may be the truth, it isn't faith-promoting. Okay, got it.

The items within their scientific vocabulary--let me again use the example of prophet and revelation--have clear and unambiguous meaning.

Prophet and Revelation are scientific?

They have the strength of will, the requisite certitude to insist that discrepant or anomalous findings which contradict the governing paradigm be swept aside.

In other words, they're willing to give a half-baked account, in order for it to remain faith-promoting. Okay, got it.

They also have the strength of will, and certainly the temperament, to insist, as a condition of entry to the legitimate community of discourse, on conformity to the dictates of the paradigm.

No questions may be asked, no doubts may be present... the thinking has already been done.

All of these, I submit, are the preconditions for establishing a paradigmatic discipline of Mormon history capable of generating objective findings."

Well, that's a interesting definition of "objective findings".

Where does that leave Dr Midgley and the others?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Harmony:

I hesitate to be inflammatory here, but . . . well, there's no substitute for reading.

Peter Novick, now retired from the University of Chicago, is a major American historian (and, for what it's worth, a self-described agnostic Jew) whose thought on the question of historiographical objectivity is extremely subtle and rich. Even you are unlikely to have mastered his argument by reading a single paragraph culled and transcribed from a Sunstone talk on an internet message board.

I recommend his book That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988) [648 pp].

[_Chap]

Harmony:

I hesitate to be inflammatory here, but . . . well, there's no substitute for reading.

Peter Novick, now retired from the University of Chicago, is a major American historian (and, for what it's worth, a self-described agnostic Jew) whose thought on the question of historiographical objectivity is extremely subtle and rich. Even you are unlikely to have mastered his argument by reading a single paragraph culled and transcribed from a Sunstone talk on an internet message board.

I recommend his book That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988) [648 pp].

It may well be that DCP's characterisation of Novick's intellectual qualities is accurate. It may well be that the quoted passage radically misrepresents Novick's view of the group of LDS historians there referred to.

Frankly, I hope it does.

Despite that, the fact remains that as comments on the passage she had before her on this discussion board (for that is where we are, folks), Harmony's remarks are very apposite. Anyone who asserted that procedures of the kind therein described could produce something worthy of being called 'objective findings' could only do so on the basis of an understanding of 'objectivity' that was, well, 'extremely subtle'. So subtle as to be very different than the use of the term by us poor ordinary mortals. So let us hope that in reality Novick did nothing of the kind.

Still, Harmony in no way deserves to be patronised or rebuked by anybody for her post, which was, as I have already said, perfectly fair comment on the OP.

[_Tom]

My children would have been accusing me of child abuse, and I'd have to agree with them.

After reading Prof. Novick's book, we plan to read something by Ron Walker, who is, according to Prof. Midgley, one of the "[a]pologists for the so-called New Mormon History."

[_beastie]

Poor Dr. Midgley. He must be the most misunderstood person in the world, second only to Dr. Peterson, whose words are constantly misconstrued, as well.

[_Ray A]

After reading Prof. Novick's book, we plan to read something by Ron Walker, who is, according to Prof. Midgley, one of the "[a]pologists for the so-called New Mormon History."

Jan Shipps also stated that Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is "in the tradition of the New Mormon History".

Here are Bushman's comments:

No one is better qualified to comment on the state of Mormon history than Jan Shipps. Not only has she been an observer of the Mormon historiographical scene for half a century; she has been one of the most vigorous and influential participants. Her Mormonism broke new ground in the conceptualization of the Mormon past. I meant it when I said for the dust jacket: "This may be the most brilliant book ever written on Mormonism." She is to be believed when she says Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling stands squarely in the tradition of the new Mormon history.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Poor Dr. Midgley. He must be the most misunderstood person in the world, second only to Dr. Peterson, whose words are constantly misconstrued, as well.

I don't have much problem, most places.

But you are, I grant, pretty bad.