66 replies to this topic

[Lamanite]

This is an out of context quote from Bushman in his Afterword remarks to "Believing History."  It originally made me think of a friend completing graduate work back East.   I thought I would share it here as well and see what people think.  

In my opinion this is still a relevant charge against Church members at any level. I'm sure we've all thought about these issues before so I'm interested to see some opinions

"I think the situation of believers who write the history of their own traditions is more complicated than their critics allow. The assumption behind the question is that believers cannot be to criticize their own tradition or record negative facts because their own faith is at stake. In this view, believers have too much invested. They must either suppress everything negative or spend their energies defending the faith. To attack the tradition and bring it down would undermine their own lives and the lives of their fellow believers. When it comes to presenting evidence, the believer hesitates."[emphasis added] (Bushman 2004)

Not only to those believers who write history but to those believers that consume history.  To the lay person as well as the academics.  To those who are both intellectually and faithfully honest.  Thoughts?


Big UP!

Lamanite

[Tacenda]

Lamanite, on 19 August 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

This is an out of context quote from Bushman in his Afterword remarks to "Believing History."  It originally made me think of a friend completing graduate work back East.   I thought I would share it here as well and see what people think.  

In my opinion this is still a relevant charge against Church members at any level. I'm sure we've all thought about these issues before so I'm interested to see some opinions

"I think the situation of believers who write the history of their own traditions is more complicated than their critics allow. The assumption behind the question is that believers cannot be to criticize their own tradition or record negative facts because their own faith is at stake. In this view, believers have too much invested. They must either suppress everything negative or spend their energies defending the faith. To attack the tradition and bring it down would undermine their own lives and the lives of their fellow believers. When it comes to presenting evidence, the believer hesitates."[emphasis added] (Bushman 2004)

Not only to those believers who write history but to those believers that consume history.  To the lay person as well as the academics.  To those who are both intellectually and faithfully honest.  Thoughts?


Big UP!

Lamanite

My thought is as exactly as Bushman describes, if I understood him correctly.  I believe wholeheartedly that most LDS don't dig deep into Mormon history.  And I'm very careful not to bring up facts because they wouldn't believe it if I told them, but I don't because I don't want anyone going through the pain I have in trying to restore what once was.

Edited by Tacenda, 20 August 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[juliann]

Since you are using his name,  what is Bushman's opinion?   He refers to this view as an "assumption behind the question".

[Lamanite]

juliann, on 19 August 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Since you are using his name,  what is Bushman's opinion?   He refers to this view as an "assumption behind the question".

Fair question.  He discusses dialogic history and thinking at some length but at the end of his remarks he simply says:

"Dialogic historians like myself cannot leave out embarrassing facts so long as they are part of the historical record.  The strict discipline imposed by living in two worlds compels us to tell it all.  To believe the history I write, I have to represent all sides."

I like Bushman's approach.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Acris Venator]

Critics are either snipers or barking dogs. It's all about your approach to history.

Does the knowledge that David was a murderer and an adulterer change the fact that he was a prophet of God in the minds of any Christian, anywhere? Does it allow for critics to effectively claim that his miracle of slaying Goliath never happened? No, and the reason for this is that his failings are included in the narrative.

[Ron Beron]

Acris Venator, on 19 August 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Critics are either snipers or barking dogs. It's all about your approach to history.

Does the knowledge that David was a murderer and an adulterer change the fact that he was a prophet of God in the minds of any Christian, anywhere? Does it allow for critics to effectively claim that his miracle of slaying Goliath never happened? No, and the reason for this is that his failings are included in the narrative.

David was never considered to be a prophet only a messianic king.  His condemnation and criticism came through the mouth of the prophet Nathan.

Edited by Ron Beron, 19 August 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

Lamanite, on 19 August 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Fair question.  He discusses dialogic history and thinking at some length but at the end of his remarks he simply says:

"Dialogic historians like myself cannot leave out embarrassing facts so long as they are part of the historical record.  The strict discipline imposed by living in two worlds compels us to tell it all.  To believe the history I write, I have to represent all sides."

I like Bushman's approach.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Since history is not facts, but the interpretation of facts, it really doesn't matter so much which facts are enumerated by professional, trained historians, but rather to what school of thought they adhere, or whether they fear losing their job over some particular historical controversy.  Ideology often trumps history.

In the case of Fawn Brodie (who was not a trained historian), for example, her ideological preconceptions controlled how she would interpret nearly any aspect of Joseph Smith's life.  Her personal letters show that she had an a priori desire to separate herself from Mormonism, leading her to take only negative views whenever possible.  Even when she was fully aware that the facts did not justify her conclusions, she would insinuate the direction she wanted the reader to go, and she did this in her revised second edition even when she had to remove false claims (on the First Vision, on the source of the name "Nauvoo," etc.).

Anti-Mormons can be as guilty of this as pro-Mormons, but it can be attenuated by strict adherence to good, professional historiography -- including peer reviewed publication in mainstream journals and academic publishing houses.

[Acris Venator]

Ron Beron, on 19 August 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

David was never considered to be a prophet only a messianic king.  His condemnation and criticism came through the mouth of the prophet Nathan.

Thank-you. I always considered him a prophet because of the psalms, but I guess there's no evidence he is their author.

[Pa Pa]

Tacenda, on 19 August 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

My thought is as exactly as Bushman describes, if I understood him correctly.  I believe wholeheartedly that most LDS don't dig deep into Mormon history.  And I'm very careful not to bring up facts because they wouldn't believe it if I told them, but I don't because I don't want anyone going thru the pain I have in trying to restore what once was.

My testimony increases as I see early leaders as flawed men and women and then marvel at what they accomplished dispute those flaws and weaknesses.

[Vance]

Ron Beron, on 19 August 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

David was never considered to be a prophet only a messianic king.

I don't know if I believe that.

Peter seemed to think he was a prophet.
Acts 1:15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
  16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Edited to add,
Let's not forget this one.
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
  30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Edited by Vance, 20 August 2012 - 07:31 AM.

[CV75]

Lamanite, on 19 August 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Not only to those believers who write history but to those believers that consume history.  To the lay person as well as the academics.  To those who are both intellectually and faithfully honest.  Thoughts?

I keep a personal history--what more can I say?

But to say more, I am more personally vested in my personal history than other / external historical records. For that reason, I can take others' accounts from either "side" with a grain of salt. When under fire, whether personally or about the history of the Church, I tend to turn the other cheek. it is easy for me to transcend such criticism, knowing what I know. History is like science and art in that regard, exept based more on memory than reason or creativity (respectively), but none of them are necessarily spiritual.

[rpn]

This is a variation on the theme, "History is written by the conquerors".   There is some truth that those "in charge" of the history seek to make it work for them.  And the research on confirmation bias gives some credence to this concern.  But I'm not sure why faithful LDS should have any less authenticity when it comes to reviewing their history than, say Blacks who write about slavery, or communists who write about the history of socialism/communism.   History by its very nature (and human nature) is viewed differently by different people.  Frequently those who lived it will report that they don't recognize the versions outsiders tell of the events.

Edited by rpn, 20 August 2012 - 09:28 AM.

[Ron Beron]

Vance, on 20 August 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

I don't know if I believe that.

Peter seemed to think he was a prophet.
Acts 1:15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
  16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Edited to add,
Let's not forget this one.
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
  30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

No need for two prophets.  There was Nathan who was set apart by Samuel.  Secondly, do we really want David as a prophet?  Consider the adultery, murder, etc.

Edited by Ron Beron, 20 August 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ron Beron, on 20 August 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

No need for two prophets.  There was Nathan who was set apart by Samuel.  Secondly, do we really want David as a prophet?  Consider the adultery, murder, etc.

There were hundreds of prophets alive during David's reign.  Groups of them.  Nathan was merely the prophet sent to David by the Lord to condemn him for murder and adultery.  The question of whether we want David as a prophet is irrelevant.  That he fell from grace does in no way obviate the selection of him by the Lord as king, as well as the founder of the dynasty of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Promises were made and kept.  That David was a man after God's own heart did not prevent him from making bad judgments, but those judgments do not wipe away his earlier accomplishments.

[DBMormon]

Quote

Critics are either snipers or barking dogs.

  on this board... yes

[KevinG]

DBMormon, on 20 August 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

on this board... yes

Woof!

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 19 August 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

My thought is as exactly as Bushman describes, if I understood him correctly.  I believe wholeheartedly that most LDS don't dig deep into Mormon history.  And I'm very careful not to bring up facts because they wouldn't believe it if I told them, but I don't because I don't want anyone going through the pain I have in trying to restore what once was.

Bushman does not say that the believers who write history do this but rather this is an assumption of the critics.  It has been my experience that this assumption is incorrect.

[ERayR]

Acris Venator, on 19 August 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Critics are either snipers or barking dogs. It's all about your approach to history.

DBMormon, on 20 August 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

on this board... yes

If it looks like one, talks like one, acts like one then it probably is one.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lamanite, on 19 August 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Fair question.  He discusses dialogic history and thinking at some length but at the end of his remarks he simply says:

"Dialogic historians like myself cannot leave out embarrassing facts so long as they are part of the historical record.  The strict discipline imposed by living in two worlds compels us to tell it all.  To believe the history I write, I have to represent all sides."

I like Bushman's approach.

Big UP!

Lamanite

The task of a good historian, it seems to me, is not just to lay out what's in the "historical record," but to provide some sort of educated, scholarly, professional, expert evaluation of the credibility of the sources that make up that record. The latter is the more difficult task, but if done well, it is what separates the historian from the stenographer or transcriber. And it highlights what I see as the main shortcoming of so-called "objective" history, which makes no effort to provide such evaluation.

For example: I recall reading that affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut from Palmyra townsfolk defaming the Prophet Joseph Smith and his family were quite obviously composed by Hurlbut himself for the signature of whomever he could find to sign them. A history that did not point out this fact would be deficient, in my opinion.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 20 August 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[Helen47]

Scott Lloyd, on 20 August 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

The task of a good historian, it seems to me, is not just to lay out what's in the "historical record," but to provide some sort of educated, scholarly, professional, expert evaluation of the credibility of the sources that make up that record. The latter is the more difficult task, but if done well, it is what separates the historian from the stenographer or transcriber. And it highlights what I see as the main shortcoming of so-called "objective" history, which makes no effort to provide such evaluation.

For example: I recall reading that affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut from Palmyra townsfolk defaming the Prophet Joseph Smith and his family were quite obviously composed by Hurlbut himself for the signature of whomever he could find to sign them. A history that did not point out this fact would be deficient, in my opinion.

What  about the Deming interviews? They got the same story. After the RLDS efforts Deming got it right.