Is arguing about historicity unscholarly?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

I've heard some scholars argue for this approach but I think it is a self-serving view. While scholarship discussing whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not can become overly polemical, in my view there is nothing that precludes such discussions from being considered scholarly.

Off the record, who was the historian?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks everyone for your comments. They are much appreciated. Ray asked about contexts. I will not reveal who this historian is, except to say that I admire his work and have not generally found it to be "apologetic" in nature. I admire him enough, in fact, that his very negative reaction to my paper left me feeling a bit depressed last night, and I say that as one who has been blessed with a usually very positive demeanor. As for my paper, it argues for a particular manuscript trajectory in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. In my introduction I briefly rehearse the history of the question, which has basically been a struggle between apologists and critics (though I don't use those labels there). In the body of my paper I pull no punches in disagreeing with the apologists, but I focus on ideas rather than personalities. Where they got something right, I make sure to cite them favorably in that regard. In my conclusion I said, "It may be time to rescue [the KEP] from the neglect and ignominy to which apologetic concerns have long consigned them, and to allow them to illuminate Joseph Smith’s theology and prophetic consciousness."

Let me also say many of this historian's comments on the manuscript were good and constructive, and will strengthen the paper. It was just his commitment to "bypassing the question," as Chap has put it, that irked me.

Dan wrote,

Is arguing about historicity unscholarly?

No.

I thought you might feel that way. I couldn't help but notice that this historian's ideas about what constitutes academic scholarship exclude apologetic work as much as it does work by critics.

-Chris

[Guest]

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.

The reader always decides, surely?. Some historians will present their work in a way that makes their conclusions explicitly subject to a reader's judgment; some won't.

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.

How could one disagree? I notice however that you do not contend that a historical assessment of the accounts of the First Vision would be an illegitimate thing to attempt.

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.

Are you suggesting that it is not possible to write accurately and fairly about whether Smith made up the Book of Mormon, or really discovered an ancient text? If so, why? I take it neither of us intends to weary our readers with dogmatic assertions about what "the wider historical profession" thinks is normal, assertions which neither of us can give substance to unless we abandon our anonymity and lay out our credentials.

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.

You can argue that if you want to. So far you have not gone much further than asserting it.

[_Chap]

Note to Mods:

CK and I have agreed in PMs that it might be a good idea to merge this thread and mine on 'bypassing the question'. I think we would both be happy for you to decide how exactly this is to be done, if it is to be done.

[_Ray A]

The reader always decides, surely?. Some historians will present their work in a way that makes their conclusions explicitly subject to a reader's judgment; some won't.

In the case of Book of Mormon historicity, David Wright never suggested that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. In fact, he suggested that it could be understood better if not viewed as a historical text. But, a reader might conclude it to be a fraud based on Wright's scholarly assessments.

Yes, readers do decide for themselves, regardless of Wright's conclusions. Many have also misunderstood Quinn in this regard, being "baffled" as to why Quinn is still a believer. One would think that Quinn knows his sources better than anyone else. More reader decisions.

How could one disagree? I notice however that you do not contend that a historical assessment of the accounts of the First Vision would be an illegitimate thing to attempt.

Nor is a historical assessment of whether the Book of Mormon is history illegitimate, as I said:

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.

Are you suggesting that it is not possible to write accurately and fairly about whether Smith made up the Book of Mormon, or really discovered an ancient text?

No. See above.

[_Ray A]

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.

You can argue that if you want to. So far you have not gone much further than asserting it.

As much as yours was an assertion.

Chap wrote:

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.

(Emphasis added)

[_Chap]

.....

.....

Now that Ray A and I are starting to play games with one another about the modalities of our posts (probably my fault), I think that we run even more risk than usual of boring our readers. So I shall stop this exchange unless something substantive and new comes up.

[_TAK]

RAY
In the case of Book of Mormon historicity, David Wright never suggested that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. In fact, he suggested that it could be understood better if not viewed as a historical text.


Well that makes sense..
After all how could someone enjoy the Wizard of Oz if they are caught up in the realities of flying monkeys?