Comments on: Family History and Mormon Scholarship

By: giggleman

giggleman — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:49:42 +0000

Terryl Givens has made the point in a few different places (most recently in a talk at Boston Univ. last Monday), that Joseph Smith and the first Mormons used the BOM more as a signifier than a signified to point to his position as a prophet and leader of the Church. In a more contemporary setting, missionaries are often told that one of the most effective and powerful tools to teach others is the power of bearing their own testimony. It seems to me that these facts have a bearing on this discussion; given that our faith is so new (relatively speaking), and that our religion/culture has such a strong communitarian-type emphasis, might it be that we are deeply invested in the characteristics of our forebears (spiritually, physically, or both) because that is one of the prime sources of our own faith? In other words, the spiritual qualities of the early leaders of the church were what motivated new members at the time to join the Church, and so on down to today, so perhaps we are interested in such family history because their spiritual strengths and weaknesses are intimately connected, in some sense, to our own, and serve to reflect our own character in some way, if only darkly.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:44:48 +0000

There have been some very insightful comments already in this post. Nate has tied the polemic of Mormon history to the importance of Mormon identity–especially in the context of a family. I think that some very insightful comments have been made about Mormon history flourishing mostly outside the constraints of conventional academic historiography and discourse. This outsider status makes ad hominem attacks much less risky than those made in conventional scholarly journals Also, historians generally try to give each other the benefit of the doubt because we know of the horrible barriers that must be crossed to obtain a PhD in history today (Sorry, I’m working on my prelims in History right now).

Yet I would argue that meta-narrative is the factor that plays the largest role in creating the contentious nature of Mormon history. Most faithful Mormons believe that the Church holds some level of God-given “Truth.” Thus, the underlying narrative of believing Mormon history must run teleologically..Many believers, even scholars, assume that historical discovery will ultimately demonstrate that God is in control and that he guides the affairs of men. This core assumption of believing history contrasts drastically with the humanistic nature of disciplinary history which requires that humans direct the course of history. Current Historical methods allow no room for the quantification, analysis, or recognition of Divine intervention in the affairs of men. Nevertheless, believers must acknowledge the hand of Divine interventions, at least in a few specific circumstances–think the First Vision, Resurrection, stuff like that. The meta-narrative undergirding all believing scholarship is that God directs the affairs of men, while the meta-narrative guiding conventional history is the contradictory assertion that humans or chance must be responsible for all historical development. The New Mormon History advocated placing this meta-narrative of faith in the background of scholarship in order to more easily communicate with professional historians and hopefully capture a more “objective” view of historical events. In the process of obscuring the meta-narrative, some repudiated it outright. I would argue that most of the greatest disagreements in Mormon history actually develop out of contrasting views, whether real or perceived, about the Mormon meta-narrative regarding the “Truth” of a God-directed course of human history–especially in the case of the restoration. Just my own two cents.

By: Aaron Brown

Aaron Brown — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:55:44 +0000

Excellent.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:48:56 +0000

To add – I think it goes both ways. You have the defenders of a happy narrative trying support their favorite uncle. Then you have those pissed at the uncle who are focused on a different narrative and perhaps as much focused on pissing off the others at the family reunion.

I’d add that I think the biggest problem in Mormon history is less lying than it is omissions. And that definitely goes on in both camps a great deal.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:45:29 +0000

Great post Nate. I’d not thought about it quite like that. But you’re absolutely right.

By: manaen

manaen — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:26:40 +0000

Interesting posting, but I wish you’d use fictional examples instead of dipping into The Manaen Family History that went on-line last year. Ethel was a fine old woman, regardless of that business about

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:30:12 +0000

I am not normally one to go around accusing people of lying. But I have to say that I have seen A LOT of lying in scholarship related to religion and religious history, Mormon and otherwise. Religious studies differ from other disciplines in that scholars\’ loyalties to the credibility of their subject matter often trump their loyalties to the truth and to earnest research. And since most religion is basically indefensible, one can\’t have one\’s cake and eat it too.

By: tiredmormon

tiredmormon — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:59:55 +0000

Well, said. I have often fallen into thinking that Mormons will defend anything, just because it is THE church. But I like your insight; there is also a family connection there we are all trying to preserve.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:30:01 +0000

“such considerations do, in fact, seem nearly inescapable.”

I think that is right.

By: Jed

Jed — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:16:14 +0000

“The ultimate ur-structure of most Mormon history is not academic history but family history.”

Isn’t all academic history family history? The question is how widely our family commitments range. The larger and more inclusive they become, the less likely we are to argue that issues about academic integrity (“lying”) are the most important point to be made. We may believe the author is fudging on evidence, but the rules of etiquette demanded by our larger circle of commitments demands that we blunt our criticism and locate significance elsewhere.

It also helps to have a scholarly reputation to lose. Your Law & History Review friends have it. Many writers in the Journal of Mormon history do not. People whose peers have control over their job prospects write more circumspectly about those peers than otherwise.