Where Have all the Joseph Smith Experts Gone?

[_Trevor]

This is what I find so frustrating. "Alternative narratives" should interest everybody who does not have some sort of iron-clad stake in maintaining the status quo. The "narrative" of what happened in the past has several times been "updated" in ways that even the most reticent LDS scholar (read: R.L. Anderson) has been compelled to accept. The search for new information and updated conclusions SHOULD interest all people who are seeking the truth (or seeking as much of it as they can deal with).

I am in complete agreement with you Dale. We are interested in similar things. My guess is that the current narratives are woefully inadequate. Unfortunately, I am trying to obtain tenure in another field, so I have little time to dig for primary evidence. I have to leave that to Don, whose primary work is his Book of Mormon project. I would love to let you in on Don's research and our conversations, but out of loyalty to him I cannot spill the beans. I would recommend you contact him, and if he is willing to share, then that would be nice for both of you.

All I can say is that I believe there is ample evidence that the original conception of the Book of Mormon was along quite different lines. An examination of Ether probably helps us understand how, and awareness of a little history of that time and region can help connect some dots too. Too bad our old Book of Mormon Origins list is defunct.

[_Uncle Dale]

...I would love to let you in on Don's research... Too bad our old Book of Mormon Origins list is defunct.

I'll let some time pass, in order to see what "comes next." If Don has something
useful. I suppose he will publish it eventually. I don't have the inclination to
participate in e-mail lists, etc.

In the meanwhile, you might forward this link to Don:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm

The final text will not be posted there until June -- but he may
be interested in some of the links so far provided.

UD

[_why me]

Experts will come to the fore in about 10 years. With the publication of the Jospeh Smith Papers more people will become interested in just who this man was. Also, since the LDS church is a healthy organism, it is difficult for historians to write about Joseph Smith in an objective way. I think that many historians are afraid of tackling him. Now if the LDS church was a small sect of 1500 and had little influence in the United States I think that more historians would attempt to investigate Joseph Smith, the man and the prophet.

There is no question that Joseph Smith was one of the greatest homegrown religious men of the United States. He revolutionalized christianity but...he will go unnoticed as long as the LDS church is successful.

[_Uncle Dale]

Experts will come to the fore in about 10 years...

Ten years?

In the meanwhile, where do we go to find historical resoirces we
can access now?

To begin with, I would settle for a chronology of events associated with
the life and activities of Joseph Smith, Jr. during the year 1826.

Last time I asked this question, I was directed to Bruce Van Orden's
1985 paper: "Joseph Smith's Developmental Years, 1823-29," in
which Van Orden says: "Stowell would not have hired Joseph in the first
place had Joseph not already had the reputation of one who could find
treasures deep in the earth."

So -- was Joseph Smith hired by Stowell as a simple excavation worker --
or was he hired to consult a peepstone in a hat, to peer underground and
lead a pack of gullible money-diggers on a series of wild goose chases?

If he was brought before a judge for an examination on precisely that
same illegal activity, in March of 1826, where did Smith go for the next
six months thereafter?

Is there not a single Mormon "scholar" qualified to address such a question?

UD

[_Nevo]

Professional Mormon historians—the guys with Ph.Ds—don't spend a lot of time delving into minutiae. They're interested in the big picture. Even Richard Bushman doesn't have an intimate knowledge of every detail of Joseph Smith's life. He looks that stuff up like everyone else. As a historian, his job is to interpret the past. Antiquarianism can be left to others.

So, no, I don't think we will see a new generation of Larry Porters—people spending decades scouring courthouse basements, tracking down chests in attics, tramping through fields looking for traces of money-digging. I think the extant historical record is largely in place, and now all that remains is to interpret it. Which is precisely what we can expect to see from the new cadre of Mormon historians: Mark Ashurst-McGee, Steven Harper, Spencer Fluhman, Robin Jensen, et al.

[_moksha]

Professional Mormon historians—the guys with Ph.Ds—don't spend a lot of time delving into minutiae. They're interested in the big picture. Even Richard Bushman doesn't have an intimate knowledge of every detail of Joseph Smith's life. He looks that stuff up like everyone else. As a historian, his job is to interpret the past. Antiquarianism can be left to others.

Besides, some details are not helpful. Should we not seek instead for a bold new past?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
the extant historical record is largely in place, and now all that remains is to interpret it.
...

--sigh!--

I see where that view takes us. No need for any further delving into the origins
of Mormonism. No need to check and see if possibly any of the early, hostile
claims leveled against Smith may have had a factual basis. And no need to
re-evaluate old consensus opinions, to see if we have missed reporting on
anything truly important from the early years.

Rather than that sort of thing, we can join with Oxford University Press authors
Neilson and Givens, to evangelize Joseph Smith to the benighted Gentiles --
as one of the few truly great human beings of all time ---



I don't think that line of "interpretation" is going to go very far.

So -- I'm back to my earlier suggestion: That somebody create a Joseph Smith
"information clearinghouse" where we can compile, compare and contrast all
the evidence/arguments/conclusions so far brought to light -- (even those parts
which are not necessarily "faith-promoting").

Uncle Dale

[_Trevor]

Professional Mormon historians—the guys with Ph.Ds—don't spend a lot of time delving into minutiae. They're interested in the big picture. Even Richard Bushman doesn't have an intimate knowledge of every detail of Joseph Smith's life. He looks that stuff up like everyone else. As a historian, his job is to interpret the past. Antiquarianism can be left to others.

So, no, I don't think we will see a new generation of Larry Porters—people spending decades scouring courthouse basements, tracking down chests in attics, tramping through fields looking for traces of money-digging. I think the extant historical record is largely in place, and now all that remains is to interpret it. Which is precisely what we can expect to see from the new cadre of Mormon historians: Mark Ashurst-McGee, Steven Harper, Spencer Fluhman, Robin Jensen, et al.

Sorry, but it is all too clear that you don't really have a clue what "professional Mormon historians" do or are interested in. Historians are most definitely interested in minutiae and new evidence. They use such materials to build arguments. Not all of them go out collecting such things, but I guarantee you that new evidence will grab the attention of a good historian.

[_DonBradley]

Hey Folks!

I'm here to do a bit of posting.

This is just the sort of discussion I love, and I'm glad to Uncle Dale for raising these questions. I'll be appropriating some of the quotes you posted, UD. Thank you also for the "Con Man" link--the material there looks fascinating.

Trevor, I also love your collection of "golden Bible" references, which I shall similarly pilfer, with much thanks.

Regarding Nevo's assertions, I think that historians both collect minutiae and interpret it. Certainly the historians you named, Nevo--like Mark Ashurst-McGee and Robin Jensen--are all about minutiae. They have gone over a great deal of it with me. The reason we don't see that level of detail from Bushman is that (yes) he's doing more interpretive work, and he's not primarily a historian of Mormonism and is mostly trying to compile and present with relative brevity the up-to-date scholarship on Joseph Smith.

Despite Nevo misspeaking, in my opinion, he has proved in frequent posts over the past several years that he knows a great deal about history and historians. And it's telling that the historians he named as the cutting edge of the current crop actually do tend to be detail-oriented. Nevo does know that good historians--or at least a certain type of good historian (there are others), dives deeply into the minutiae of the past he or she wishes to understand.

Don

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Despite Nevo misspeaking
...

In a way I sort of agree with him. During my more "churchly" days,
I certainly would have argued that living the gospel is more important
for believers, than is hunting down every rumor about Peter, Paul, etc.

On the other hand, a productive society needs a few historians -- and a
religion with such a grounding in the past 200 years needs to be examined
within the discipline of History itself.

I'll grant that we "know enough" about post-Nauvoo Mormonism -- even
about 1830s and 1840s Mormonism -- to "close the books" on further
research. I don't think that will happen, but I can feel some sympathy
for what I perceive to be the Nevo position.

However, I simply cannot say the same thing about the era of the 1820s.
From a "churchly" perspective, or an apologetics perspective, or an objective
perspective, or from a critical perspective, THAT time period should not be
ignored (or merely interpreted, based upon 2009 consensus opinions).

Unless we are all ready to concede that Nephites were real and that Smith
told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about his gold
Bible -- then I think the quest for new information/evidence must go on.

Now -- about Father Smith offering William Hyde the position of treasurer
in the "Gold Bible Company"......

UD