Wowsers--how'd we miss this!! (Or did I miss a post?)

[_Ray A]

I commend the Church's renewed openness to historical inquiry. I hope it will continue.

So are we going to see something like Arrington's formerly proposed 16 volume History of the Church straight out of "Camelot"?

Providing resources is one thing, but do you think we're going to see more Bushman-type histories coming from Mormon historians?

Are all of Quinn's works in the library?

[_Dr. Shades]

Talk is cheap.

Let's face it: No matter what their intentions, they pretty much have to issue a statement like this.

As for me, I'll believe it only when I see it.

[Anonymous]

So are we going to see something like Arrington's formerly proposed 16 volume History of the Church straight out of "Camelot"?

I doubt it. And, as you know, most of the proposed volumes have since been published so there's probably no need for a similar project—at least before 2030. The current Joseph Smith Papers Project is in many ways even more ambitious than Arrington's proposed multivolume centennial history. I don't think we'll see another similar large-scale project until that one is more or less complete. But I could be wrong.

Providing resources is one thing, but do you think we're going to see more Bushman-type histories coming from Mormon historians?

I want to think so, but there aren't that many Bushman-type historians out there. Right now I think Terryl Givens is writing the closest thing to Bushman-style histories, but he's a literary critic whose recent focus has been cultural history—or in the case of the Book of Mormon, reception history.

I don't expect to see much in the way of densely researched tomes on early Mormon history. I'd heard, years ago, that Scott Kenney and Richard Van Wagoner were working on a multivolume biography of Joseph Smith, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming—and in any case those are non-institutional scholars.

I think the number of LDS historians inclined to write "dialogically" (i.e., "Bushman-style") is growing, but I don't think we'll see another flowering of Mormon historical scholarship, like we saw in the late 60s, 70s and 80s, anytime soon. I'd love to be wrong about this though.

[_Trevor]

Although "unorthodox" history, Roberts's book is well-researched (at least as far as the handcart pioneers are concerned) and offers a harrowing depiction of the handcart pioneers' struggles from primary sources. Roberts is unsparing in his criticism of Brigham Young and other church leaders, but he certainly succeeds in "flesh[ing] out" the story of the Willie and Martin Handcart companies, crediting them with "genuinely heroic perseverance and fortitude."

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. A few of my ancestors were in the Martin handcart company.

[_Ray A]

but I don't think we'll see another flowering of Mormon historical scholarship like we saw in the 70s and 80s anytime soon.

Specifically which works are you referring to here, Nevo?

[_Nevo]

but I don't think we'll see another flowering of Mormon historical scholarship like we saw in the 70s and 80s anytime soon.

Specifically which works are you referring to here, Nevo?

That time frame was probably too narrow. Late 60s to mid-1990s might be better. Basically during Arrington's tenure as dean of Mormon history.

There are too many to list, but I was thinking of books and articles by:

• Leonard Arrington
• Robert Bruce Flanders
• Klaus Hansen
• James Allen
• Marvin Hill
• Ronald Walker
• Ronald Esplin
• William Hartley
• Thomas Alexander
• Stanley Kimball
• Richard Bushman
• Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery
• Maureen Ursenbach Beecher
• D. Michael Quinn
• Stephen LeSueur
• Roger Launius
• Gary Bergera
• Dan Vogel
• David John Buerger
• Grant Underwood
• Jan Shipps et al.

[_Ray A]

There are too many to list, but I was thinking of books and articles by:

• Leonard Arrington
• Robert Bruce Flanders
• Klaus Hansen
• James Allen
• Marvin Hill
• Ronald Walker
• Ronald Esplin
• William Hartley
• Thomas Alexander
• Stanley Kimball
• Richard Bushman
• Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery
• Maureen Ursenbach Beecher
• D. Michael Quinn
• Stephen LeSueur
• Roger Launius
• Gary Bergera
• Dan Vogel
• David John Buerger
• Grant Underwood
• Jan Shipps et al.

I've read articles/books from all of them. I haven't been following BYU Studies (nor Sunstone, Dialogue) for a long time, but many of them also published first-rate articles there. Alexander was a particularly interesting figure to me, and his book Mormonism in Transition (he also spoke on radio here with Phillip Adams many years ago, an idea I actually put into Phillip's mind, when we corresponded). These were not ideas that would be welcomed by "the orthodoxy". I also followed all of the debates on Mormon historiography, which were very interesting. Ron Walker's BYU Studies article on Heber J. Grant was refreshingly honest. Such was what I considered "real scholarship".

Thanks, now I have a better idea of what you were referring to, and I thought this might be the case.

[_why me]

I would also add that if a Church cannot whitewash its history, then it cannot whitewash itself.

Lets look at it this way: the best way to hide history is to destroy it: burn the past. If the LDS church wished to hide the past, they could have burned documents that may not be considered faith promoting.

And lets look at it this way: if stalin and the soviets would have seen what would happen in 1991, stalin would have burned his files. They were saved because the events of 1991 happened too quickly.

[_why me]

Talk is cheap.

And we see a lot of it on MDb.

[_Mary]

I would also add that if a Church cannot whitewash its history, then it cannot whitewash itself.

Lets look at it this way: the best way to hide history is to destroy it: burn the past. If the LDS church wished to hide the past, they could have burned documents that may not be considered faith promoting.

.

True, but if I had been loyal to the church and had had documents that were incredibly damaging to some of the foundation claims, say a Spalding Manuscript that might of been in Joseph's possession, or a letter thanking Joseph for his regular attendance at the local brothel, a letter from Fanny Alger or Miss Hill, a bill for the construction of some metal plates, I would have destroyed them long ago. Brigham Young was quick I think to construct a faith promoting history to his own people, as an example, he wasn't keen on Mother Smith's account and saw to it that some fairly significant portions were erased.

We have no way of knowing whether some 'burning' hasn't already occurred Why Me. I would be incredibly surprised if it hasn't.