- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Back on the post about The Expositor (see http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2912&p=36143#p36119
Quote:what is a good source of Church history for the casual student — not too much detail, but enough to for the intelligent layperson to get a rudimentary to intermediate knowledge of what happened in our early history — without all this hiding and partial reporting of facts like we saw in the PBS.org special, and Truth Restored? Not anti-Mormon, but not so pro-Mormon it paints everything as roses and candy?
It got me thinking. If someone (such as me) were to write a casual/comprehensive book, summarizing the best scholarship on the topics, what topics would be best to include/exclude. I’m not sure that casual and comprehensive go together in the same sentence, but here’s a list of ideas that I thought might be important to cover.
1. Multiple First Vision Accounts
2. An account of the translation process
3. Issues surrounding Joseph’s death (Expositor)
4. Evolution of Temple Ordinances (from Kirtland to Nauvoo/St George)
5. Other major Mormon schismatic groups
6. The Succession Crisis
7. Joseph Smith era polygamy
8. Utah polygamy
9. Post-Manifesto polygamy
10. Differences between United Order and Consecration
11. The Haun’s Mill Massacre
12. The Mountain Meadows Massacre
13. The Priesthood Ban
14. Book of Mormon Geography Theories
15. The DNA issue
16. Women and Priesthood
17, What Happened to Emma/Joseph’s family?
18. Church growth (baseball/soccer baptisms)
19. The September Six
Is that too much/too little? Is there anything I’m missing?
I think your list leans towards the negative side. You could include some positive too. Westward expansion
Colonization
Welfare
Family and values
I’m with thoreau on this. What do you want to achieve? point out all the things that have been covered up? I would hate to have anyone define my marriage of 32 years by all the cases where I’ve been a schmuck, and there are plenty of those.
Sure, when the church takes the position of infallibility and perfection, it’s important to point out fallibility and imperfection to a level necessary to debunk the claim. On the other hand, I find great good in the church, and for me, it happens to be my family and home. It may be dysfunctional, but it’s my family none the less.
I think it’s really, really important to look at a balanced view of the church — as Wikipedia would say, NPOV – neutral point of view. This means neither hiding the faults, nor putting exclusive focus on the faults. They are what they are.
just my opinion…
I don’t think MH is trying to paint a negative picture…I think perhaps he needs to define his audience though, as well as the perspective he would intend to take with the book. I would suggest making it a book for the intelligent lay man who wants to get the good, and the ugly all in one book with sufficient detail to know the facts we can count on, and perhaps a few schools of thought on those controversies — a Church one, and LDS a historian’s view, and a non-Church historian’s view.
This means it could target more of the free-thinking Mormons, as well as people interested in expanding their understanding of Mormon history who are non-members — without the whitewashing. For me, it would need to be no longer than Mormon America (written by a couple Time magazine journalists). I think a starting point for chapters might be Truth Restored, with the items MH proposed above woven into the appropriate chapters — with new chapters adopted for those areas that are broad enough to require special treatment.
mormonheretic wrote:If someone (such as me) were to write a casual/comprehensive book, summarizing the best scholarship on the topics, what topics would be best to include/exclude. I’m not sure that casual and comprehensive go together in the same sentence
I really do think you are talking in oxymoron here. If you want to cover the whole of church history, it will be a lengthy book and that would prove a barrier to the casual reader. Also you would need to vastly generalize complex issues and “pick” topics to include and others to not even touch upon – that would eliminate the concept of being comprehensive.
I think that RSR was the best comprehensive/casual hybrid so far in book form. I am not the most well read person on these issues so there may be others. I also have taken note on some recent articles in the Ensign (the example that comes to mind was on MMM) providing a more balanced (and thus a relative of comprehensive) perspective for the casual LDS audience.
Honestly, MH, my initial reaction to your central question was similar to Roy’s, but my mind phrased it as: Quote:Why would you want to try to write such an impossible book, when reading three or four books that others already have written would accomplish the exact same thing?
I don’t mean to diminish the thought-experiment, but, in practical terms, it’s mind-boggling to contemplate a “casual” history that is anywhere close to comprehensive AND relatively objective – especially one that could be seen as faith-affirming by those who want that type of book and “critical” by those who want that type of book. Even a simple “recitation” of all possible “facts” would be an arduous task, much less something that tried to analyze motives and other more subjective aspects of history.
If we’re talking about an “inoculation” book, that’s one thing – but it would tend to be seen as a more negative work by the very people who might benefit the most from it if read prior to an actual crisis of some kind. If, however, you’re talking about an “antidote” approach (one that would seek to “heal” someone already “infected” by negativism) . . .
Honestly, if I were to try to write something that was “casual” but reasonably “comprehensive”, my gut reaction would be to focus on something like the Articles of Faith and track how the things stated as “fundamentals of Mormonism” by Joseph Smith have evolved over time. Iow, how was the Godhead viewed throughout modern Mormon history; how has personal accountability been viewed (e.g., “free agency” vs. “agency”, “predestination” vs. “fore-ordination” [including the uniquely chosen people of God vs. those who affect the sealing of all God’s righteous children]); how has the Atonement of Jesus Christ been viewed; etc.? I would handle the “casual” aspect by keeping the wording as simplistic as possible (probably writing it at about a 7th or 8th Grade reading level); I would tackle the “comprehensive” aspect with lots and lots and lots of footnotes to the writings and statements of others. That way, it could function in just about whatever way any individual reader would want.
Having said all that, in the end, I probably wouldn’t attempt it.
:shh: Otoh, I think you might be able to pull it off – as long as you kept a very clear goal in mind as you were writing it and stayed totally true to that goal.:thumbup: I appreciate the responses–I’m definitely not looking for an echo chamber, and you’ve given me some things to think about. Yes, Silent Dawning is right-I’m not trying to be negative, and I was a little surprised that the first couple of responses thought that I was. Respected pro-church historians have already discussed nearly all of these issues, and (as I said) I would like to summarize many of these items from them. For example, Richard Bushman has discussed the multiple First Vision accounts as well as the translation process. BYU Studies also has information on the multiple First Vision accounts. Dallin Oaks has written about the Expositor in
Carthage Conspiracy. Devery Anderson has some really cool information on the Development of LDS Temple Worship: 1846-2000. John Hamer and Steven Shields (both formerly LDS, now RLDS, and not anti) have written about Schismatic groups. BYU Studies has Michael Quinn’s information about the Succession Crisis (while he was still employed at BYU), Bushman has written about Joseph’s polygamy, Kathryn Daines of BYU has written about Utah polygamy in More Wives than One. Quinn wrote about post-Manifesto polygamy (though he got in trouble for it), Church Historian Leonard Arrington has awesome info on Consecration/United Order, Kenny Ballentine did a great documentary on Haun’s Mill, Richard Turley and Juanita Brooks wrote about MMM; Greg Prince, Newell Bringhurst, Margaret Young, and Darius Gray speak extensively about the Priesthood Ban. I’m already well acquainted with Geography Theories, and DNA has a lot of info from Terryl Givens and BYU Studies, and I reviewed a fascinating book interviewing 5 of the September Six by Philip Lindholm.
The reason I picked these topics is because they seem to be the ones that get debated over and over about “I never knew this stuff”. I guess I’m looking for an inoculation type angle, and if you think I should avoid certain topics (like Sept Six), then I’ll take that up. While Bushman’s treatment of Joseph Smith’s life is comprehensive, he stops at Joseph’s death, and there is a lot more to church history. I’m trying to be objective, not pro or anti, though I suspect that I would lean more on pro-church historians. Yes, it can be difficult, and not for everybody. I am reminded that I gave my mom RSR, and she felt like it was too anti.
I’d like to see a non-mormon professional historian take a crack at it to not just put in stuff we knew about or didn’t know about…but a balance of it all. I agree RSR was about the best I’ve read of doing this, but as mentioned started and ended with Joseph. It reminds me of the movie “Serenity” (great Sci-Fi movie)…when they say:
Quote:Part of writing history is hiding the truth.
That is not how it should be, but it seems to be the way it has been done because a historian only has so many resources and must pick and choose the things to write about and how to present them.
If the purpose was academic, it might not be an easy read for the casual student. If it was meant to be inspiring and teach gospel principles, it would be similar to what we have in our lesson manuals, slanted for a purpose.
mormonheretic wrote:While Bushman’s treatment of Joseph Smith’s life is comprehensive, he stops at Joseph’s death, and there is a lot more to church history.
I felt that this stopping point was both the end of the stated goal (as a biography of JS) and terribly convenient. Meaning I think a book encompassing the time period of the succession crisis and the rise and reign of BY would be a much harder sell as both a balanced and not anti work. For all his faults, JS comes off as much more sympathetic than BY.
BTW is “Origins of Power” the best book for a treatment of the succession crisis?
If you want as analytical and objective a treatment as I think exists from a non-Mormon, read Jan Shipps. She has lived in Utah, has been given incredible access to the current leadership, is well-respected as a scholar and is very respectful in her treatment – even though she isn’t at all apologetic. She also is a firmly committed Methodist. I’ve heard her speak live, and her perspective is fascinating.
Wayfarer and Thoreau, do you still feel this is too negative? Roy, yes I think Origins of Power is probably the best treatment of the Succession Crisis, though Quinn also has some other excellent articles from the 1980’s that are excellent as well. John Hamer did an interview and discussed the succession crisis, and he had some interesting points as well.
MH, no it isn’t too negative… i apologize for reacting too quickly to your list of the most debated topics. i have read many of the works you cite, and i feel strongly that there are many who exhibit the NPOV necessary to treat mormon history with a factual basis. I think Dallin Oaks Carthage Conspiracy exhibits a scholar who seems to have disappeared once he became one of the brethren. selection of a set of factual topics can be unbalanced, however, if the set of facts all leave a reasonable person with the impression that the subject of the history is a certain way, either negative or positive. JS, BY, and the mormon experience are complex, enigmatic subjects, to hard to treat with a one-sided view. i think RSR does a fair job of opening the mind to the facts, without leaving the impression that the negative side is the only side. to those who grew up in TBM households (i did not), it seems that any negative info shatters an illusion. the one-sided view of the TBM point of view is equally damaging as a one-sided negative view.
there is a fascinating treatment of the limits of reporting both sides in the movie, “good night, and good luck”, regarding Morrow’s reporting of Joseph McCarthy. not every issue has two plausible sides. yet even in this extreme case, Morrow allowed McCarthy to present his side…and condemn himself thereby. sure, if the church systematically lies about relevant historical facts, it is important to shed light on the deception. but in the end, if there is no place to get a view without advocacy, truth is not served.
Hence, to me the solution to one sided history is
balanced, neutral history, without cherry-picking or value judgment. the works you cite typically do that. regards.
mormonheretic wrote:Wayfarer and Thoreau, do you still feel this is too negative?
Roy, yes I think Origins of Power is probably the best treatment of the Succession Crisis, though Quinn also has some other excellent articles from the 1980’s that are excellent as well. John Hamer did an interview and discussed the succession crisis, and he had some interesting points as well.
No. Your explanation cleared things up quite well. Thank you. I will have to keep those other works in mind and read them when I get a chance.
As I’ve reflected on this, I think that rather than making a history of the LDS Church, it would be better to entitle the book “Issues in Mormonism: Facts, Controversy and Theory” or something like that. Don’t try to make it a comprehensive history. Write it for someone who already knows something about Mormonism…. Let people get the polemical views from the other books, like Truth Restored. Instead, have a chapter or two of basic LDS history in the beginning of the book just to give people context. Then follow up with chapters that hit on the issues that most people would be interested in. I think you could do it without being negative — just present the different sides of the story and then let the reader decide.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.