Toward a Civil Dialogue
Richard Bushman had just won the historians’ prestigious Bancroft Prize when he responded with civility and grace to Reverend Walters. When I asked him why he chose that method, Bushman replied, “Simply as a tactical matter in any kind [Page 32]of controversy, it never serves you well to show scorn towards your opponent. That may make the people who are on your side rejoice and say, ‘Kick them again.’ But for those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right, you just alienate them, you just drive them into the hands of your opponent.”33 Sometimes, in an effort to defend the faith, Latter-day Saints have reacted with hostility to the critics of Joseph’s vision. If there ever was an appropriate time for such a response, it is now passed.
We are removed enough from the battlefront that we can respond less defensively and try instead to meet the needs of those who are undecided. Although I disagree with the a priori assumptions and historical interpretations of Fawn Brodie, Reverend Walters, and the Methodist minister who reproved Joseph, I empathize with these people. I may well have responded as they did if I were in different circumstances. Indeed, the minister’s and the reverend’s responses were not so different from many LDS defenses of Mormonism. Each of these critics is a vulnerable personality, like the rest of us. They worked hard to figure out how to relate to Joseph Smith’s first vision. I wish to treat them as I would like to be treated by them—and as Joseph taught the Relief Society sisters in Nauvoo. To them he said, “The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more are we dispos’d to look with compassion on perishing souls—to take them upon our shoulders and cast their sins behind our back. . . . If you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another.”
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/evalua ... st-vision/
Harper's essay is a case study in how to disagree with others without being nasty about it. Though he powerfully disagrees with Brodie, Walters, et al., he's nonetheless civil--sympathetic, even. It's striking and instructive to compare this to utterances from the Mopologists, like DCP, who've instead emphasized attitudes like, "No uncontested slam-dunks." Kudos to Bro. Harper, in any event.
But this has really got me wondering: Why would the MI allow an article like this to follow in the wake of the dreadful Hedelius piece? Is this meant to be "cover," or icing that's meant to cover up the evil, stinking cake underneath? Clearly, the MI is overwhelmingly nasty: the DCP bit, the two Midgley articles, the Hedelius, the Roger Nicholson, etc., have been rather negative, and in the spirit of hostile Mopologetics. On the other hand, we have this, the Bokovoy, and perhaps the Brant Gardner piece that were more even-handed. I have to wonder: why are they even bothering with the civil stuff? Why not just have full-fledged attacks? It's baffling, really.