Bushman And A Charge Against Believers

[Lamanite]

Bushman goes on to write, "When Fawn Brodie wrote her brilliant study fifty years ago, she was fleeing Mormonism and had no sympathy for the Mormon reader. She showed no pity as she mowed down the faithful with her account of Joseph Smith. More important, she felt no need to address the objections that Mormon scholars might raise. She was on her way out of the faith and wanted to address the larger world. She played to its prejudices while disregarding believing scholarship. "

I completely agree with Bushman here. He also mentions John Brooke's Refiner's Fire with similar comments to those made regarding Brodie. The he spoke of "believing" writers:

"Some believing writers do the opposite. They play to Mormon prejudices while rejecting the larger world....Mormons like to believe for example, that the heavens were sealed until Joseph Smith began receiving revelations. They think that the Christian world had given up on direct communication with God before Joseph Smith. With Joseph, a new dispensation of angelic visitations and open revelation began once more. But as anyone who reads in early-nineteenth-century American religious history knows, people were having dreams and visions all the time. They wrote about them, they depended upon them, they told them to their neighbors. Joseph Smith was one of scores, probably hundreds, of contemporary visionaries."

3 modern biographies that I think fell victim to "playing to Mormon prejudices"

Go forward with faith, Dew

A Disciples Life, Hafen

Ezra Taft Benson a Biography, Dew

Perhaps these bio's were never meant to be historical treatments but I think they make the point. Anyone have different examples of non-believing/believing writers and their works? These could be positive or negative examples of dialogic thinking.

I should add that on the flip side of my bio examples I have always loved the balanced approach of Bushman (Richard and Claudia), Givens, Bringhurst, and Mauss among others.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I forgot to mention two examples of biased approaches to their respective subjects. Maybe they didn't care about dialogic history?

Lion of the Lord, Porter-Black (collections of essays aren't usually my favorite)

Nauvoo Polygamy- Smith

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 21, 2012 by Lamanite

[Pahoran]

I forgot to mention two examples of biased approaches to their respective subjects. Maybe they didn't care about dialogic history?

Lion of the Lord, Porter-Black (collections of essays aren't usually my favorite)

Nauvoo Polygamy- Smith

Big UP!

Lamanite

Every history is written with a point of view. The "charge" that Bushman repeats from hostile sources (not levels in his own right) needs to have only a few words changed to be equally effective, if not more so, against hostile histories. Perhaps worst of all are those histories written by those who fondly entertain the illusion -- one is tempted to say, delusion -- of "impartiality." The only way to genuinely be impartial about any subject is to have no interest in it at all; and having no interest, having thus no motivation to do all the hard work necessary to write a history of it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Lamanite]

Every history is written with a point of view. The "charge" that Bushman repeats from hostile sources (not levels in his own right) needs to have only a few words changed to be equally effective, if not more so, against hostile histories. Perhaps worst of all are those histories written by those who fondly entertain the illusion -- one is tempted to say, delusion -- of "impartiality." The only way to genuinely be impartial about any subject is to have no interest in it at all; and having no interest, having thus no motivation to do all the hard work necessary to write a history of it.

Regards,

Pahoran

I think that all of us realize that no matter how hard we try to be objective there is no escaping our own experience. Therefore all of our efforts as students and scholars will be subjective. Life's experience informs every aspect of our life. I think dialogic thinking reflects our attempts to limit the degree to which we allow our biases to affect our efforts. From my own perspective this does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs, it does mean that I should try and present history without omitting facts as a means of protecting the faithful. Representing all sides is an honest endeavor for a faithful student and scholar.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Another great example

Mormonism in Transition- Alexander

Another lopsided presentation

Sanctity of Dissent- Toscano

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 21, 2012 by Lamanite

[CASteinman]

To me this is a bogus quote.

Its not Bushman. Its Bushman paraphrasing critics of people like Bushman. I don't agree with the critics at all and I think its obvious Bushman doesn't either.

Why raise this question? Why call it a valid complaint against Church members?

Its bogus through and through.

[CASteinman]

I've seen them used responsibly by Bushman and other scholars.

It is almost -- not quite completely -- but almost impossible to use them responsibly.

[Scott Lloyd]

Concerning the huribut affidavits and FAIRs take, so what if the man had a grudge that does not mean what he presents is automatically false. If we must hold people with grudges suspect then we must suspect those who are bias period.

Did you read the entire FAIR Wiki article I linked to or just the summary that I quoted in my post?

[noel00]

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.

Maybe some of us critics are just interested in contradictions, duplications, amusing stories in the Bible. For example the killing of Goliath. Was the same guy killed twice? Was it his brother as the KJV says? Why is this not in earlier manuscripts?

Sam. 17:41-51 comp

2 Sam. 21:19,

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam

Some scholars state that 'the brother of" is not in earlier manuscripts.

Another interesting point where David gives 200 phil foreskins to pay for no 14 wife

""Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (I Samuel 18:27)"

see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/10/24/200-foreskins/

[Robert F. Smith]

Every history is written with a point of view. The "charge" that Bushman repeats from hostile sources (not levels in his own right) needs to have only a few words changed to be equally effective, if not more so, against hostile histories. Perhaps worst of all are those histories written by those who fondly entertain the illusion -- one is tempted to say, delusion -- of "impartiality." The only way to genuinely be impartial about any subject is to have no interest in it at all; and having no interest, having thus no motivation to do all the hard work necessary to write a history of it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Still, one finds that Huston Smith's classic The Religions of Man (Mentor, 1958),* or Jan Shipps' Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (1985), both have the stamp of evenhanded or fair-minded description of religions. I admire the ability of such scholars to present a phenomenological view of religion, a sincere effort to see religion & culture as insiders do -- something anthropologists (ethnologists) are trained to do. The notion that we can only expect deeply biased and prejudiced historical writing is certainly wrong. We need to set our sights much higher and demand adherence to professional standards of historiography.

* Later revised and published as The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions (HarperOne, 1991).

[William Schryver]

(quoting Richard Bushman)

"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."

Although it is my impression that "dialogic," as employed by contemporary historians, frequently amounts to little more than unwarranted speculation, I certainly have no problem with "leaving the facts in," embarrassing or otherwise.

However, as is sometimes seen in Rough Stone Rolling, the "embarrassing facts" are not always necessarily factual. In one particularly head-shaking instance, Bushman uncritically accepts as "fact" an extremely questionable report from the Howe's notoriously unreliable Mormonism Unvailed.

My perception is that, at times, Bushman deliberately "throws a bone" to Joseph Smith's critics; surrendering points that could easily be defended, for no good reason except (it appears to me) to give the impression that he is more "objective" and "scholarly" than the Mormon historians who have preceded him in the field.

I'm all for "leaving in the embarrassing facts," but let's be certain, when we do it, they really are facts. And when it comes to the huge body of so-called "facts" written about Joseph Smith, we would do well to be particularly skeptical. This is, after all, the man of whom it was prophesied:

... my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

[sethpayne]

It is almost -- not quite completely -- but almost impossible to use them responsibly.

The friendly ones are pretty useful, IMO and as long as they can be corroborated with other sources they should they should be consulted.

[DavidB]

Did you read the entire FAIR Wiki article I linked to or just the summary that I quoted in my post?

I read enough of FAIR to know that quasi smear campaigns do not interest me. I read enough of what you posted to read the smear campaign. As I stated earlier, if we are to suspect people with bias then we must suspect everyone with bias which meas all sources pro and con.

Frankly, I do not give much credence to "I have an affidavit" seems everyone of that time period had an affidavit about something, looking back on the use of the affidavit, just makes them all seem so terribly trite.

Edited August 21, 2012 by DavidB

[Scott Lloyd]

I read enough of FAIR to know that quasi smear campaigns do not interest me. I read enough of what you posted to read the smear campaign. As I stated earlier, if we are to suspect people with bias then we must suspect everyone with bias which meas all sources pro and con.

So apparently the answer to my question, then, is no, you did not read the link.

I agree that pretty much everyone who has an interest in a topic has a bias, and yes, I would affirm that all sources of information need to be evaluated for bias. And that goes to the very point I'm making, that it is the task of a good historian to give an intelligent evaluation of the credibility of sources, even as he/she presents what they say.

Frankly, I do not give much credence to "I have an affidavit" seems everyone of that time period had an affidavit about something, looking back on the use of the affidavit, just makes them all seem so terribly trite.

And thus you are herewith giving us your own evaluation the credibility of Hurlbut as a source.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[DavidB]

I read enough of the FAIR article to realize I did not want to finish it. As for the affidavits, yes, I question them for their very creation not because of the person or their grudge (I would question/suspect/and likely dismiss a pro-LDS affidavit from that time period on the same grounds, suspect because of it very creation.)

[Scott Lloyd]

I read enough of the FAIR article to realize I did not want to finish it. As for the affidavits, yes, I question them for their very creation not because of the person or their grudge (I would question/suspect/and likely dismiss a pro-LDS affidavit from that time period on the same grounds, suspect because of it very creation.)

Whether or not you think it's a smear job, there are facts in the FAIR piece that I as a reader want and need to know in coming to a conclusion about the veracity of the Hurlbut affidavits. And, I reiterate, its the job of a good historian to bring those facts to the fore.

And If, as you say, affidavits from that time period are a dime a dozen, that's also something that a thoughtful reader should weigh in his evaluation.

And again, the very fact that you are so dismissive of the FAIR article indicates that even you must accept my point: that evaluation of credibility -- as opposed to just a straight recitation of fact -- is desirable.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

Maybe some of us critics are just interested in contradictions, duplications, amusing stories in the Bible. For example the killing of Goliath. Was the same guy killed twice? Was it his brother as the KJV says? Why is this not in earlier manuscripts?

Sam. 17:41-51 comp 2 Sam. 21:19,

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam

Some scholars state that 'the brother of" is not in earlier manuscripts.

Emanuel Tov believed that a biblical editor conflated two separate accounts in the Massoretic text.¹ that of David & Goliath and Elhanan & Lahmi (2 Sam 21:19, 1 Chron 20:5-. However, the matter of literary topoi must also be considered since we have a number of accounts of duels of this sort which end with the hero loppihg off the head of his opponent with his own sword or axe, e.g., Beowlf, Sir Lancelot, and even the Egyptian Sinuhe -- who defeats his formidable foe in Syria a millennium before David comes on the scene. In fact, Egyptologist W. K. Simpson believes that that this combat in the Tale of Sinuhe “may have served as a literary prototype” for the “David and Goliath duel.”² Any knowledgeable scholar can think of several other such topoi.

-------------------

¹Bible Review, 2/4 (Winter 1986), 34-41.

² Simpson, “The Story of Sinuhe,” 59 n. 12, in W. K. Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt, 3rd ed. (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2003), citing G. Lanczkowski, MDAIK, 16 (1958), 214-218.

[Robert F. Smith]

I read enough of the FAIR article to realize I did not want to finish it. As for the affidavits, yes, I question them for their very creation not because of the person or their grudge (I would question/suspect/and likely dismiss a pro-LDS affidavit from that time period on the same grounds, suspect because of it very creation.)

So the world for you is like a courtroom in which advocates enter and do battle, suborning perjury at will, and a jury of yokels passes judgment on the popularity of the advocate who outsmarms the other?? Everyone is equally venal. Since nobody's perfect, all must be considered as part of the criminal class, without exception. In other words, since all are equally biased and prejudiced, we can know nothing. We are doomed to act out our pre-programmed mammalian instincts, while all that supposedly makes us human is mere fantasy.

[Robert F. Smith]

I read enough of FAIR to know that quasi smear campaigns do not interest me. I read enough of what you posted to read the smear campaign. As I stated earlier, if we are to suspect people with bias then we must suspect everyone with bias which meas all sources pro and con.

Frankly, I do not give much credence to "I have an affidavit" seems everyone of that time period had an affidavit about something, looking back on the use of the affidavit, just makes them all seem so terribly trite.

I read enough of the FAIR article to realize I did not want to finish it. As for the affidavits, yes, I question them for their very creation not because of the person or their grudge (I would question/suspect/and likely dismiss a pro-LDS affidavit from that time period on the same grounds, suspect because of it very creation.)

What do you actually mean by "smear"? Are there particular statements in FAIRwiki which are clearly part of a "smear"? Is everything always a "smear," or are there examples of writing which you do not consider to be a "smear"?

[DavidB]

So the world for you is like a courtroom in which advocates enter and do battle, suborning perjury at will, and a jury of yokels passes judgment on the popularity of the advocate who outsmarms the other?? Everyone is equally venal. Since nobody's perfect, all must be considered as part of the criminal class, without exception. In other words, since all are equally biased and prejudiced, we can know nothing. We are doomed to act out our pre-programmed mammalian instincts, while all that supposedly makes us human is mere fantasy.

Thank you for your opinion.

It is utterly ridiculous to accuse another of bias - especially when the accusation is intended to turn tide of opinion against the accused - while ignoring or being dismissive to ones own bias and motives in making the accusation.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thank you for your opinion.

It is utterly ridiculous to accuse another of bias - especially when the accusation is intended to turn tide of opinion against the accused - while ignoring or being dismissive to ones own bias and motives in making the accusation.

I merely reduced your own claims to the absurd. A reductio ad absurdum to hold up a mirror to you so that you can see the logical consequences of your faulty reasoning. Of course you don't like it. Why would you? Solution: Present your arguments based on reason and logic. Expect real discussion to ensue, and be prepared to engage in a real exchange of views. That is what a dialogue & discussion board is all about. John Stuart Mill thought discussion of opposing views to be a very healthy and productive enterprise. Do you agree?

[Bill Hamblin]

Emanuel Tov believed that a biblical editor conflated two separate accounts in the Massoretic text.¹ that of David & Goliath and Elhanan & Lahmi (2 Sam 21:19, 1 Chron 20:5- . However, the matter of literary topoi must also be considered since we have a number of accounts of duels of this sort which end with the hero loppihg off the head of his opponent with his own sword or axe, e.g., Beowlf, Sir Lancelot, and even the Egyptian Sinuhe -- who defeats his formidable foe in Syria a millennium before David comes on the scene. In fact, Egyptologist W. K. Simpson believes that that this combat in the Tale of Sinuhe “may have served as a literary prototype” for the “David and Goliath duel.”² Any knowledgeable scholar can think of several other such topoi.

-------------------

¹Bible Review, 2/4 (Winter 1986), 34-41.

² Simpson, “The Story of Sinuhe,” 59 n. 12, in W. K. Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt, 3rd ed. (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2003), citing G. Lanczkowski, MDAIK, 16 (1958), 214-218.

They're actually not literary topoi so much as things ancient warriors regularly did in battle.

[Robert F. Smith]

They're actually not literary topoi so much as things ancient warriors regularly did in battle.

d'accord, although I have in mind other instances of the same literary topos. Moreover, the Tale of Sinuhe (which is chiastic) appears to have been a text learned by Lehi and/or Nephi in Egyptian scribal school. For example, the description of Bountiful in I Nephi seems to borrow from Sinuhe's description of the Land of Yaa in Syria. Etc. You might want to consider the Egypticity of Judah and of the family of Lehi during the Willes Center Book of Mormon Lectures scheduled to be held at BYU Friday August 31, from 1:30 - 5:30 pm. Stefan Wimmer, who is coming in from Germany, will be speaking to that particular issue (use of Egyptian in Judah). Other non-Mormon scholars will be addressing literacy in Judah, etc.

[Nevo]

To me this is a bogus quote.

Its not Bushman. Its Bushman paraphrasing critics of people like Bushman. I don't agree with the critics at all and I think its obvious Bushman doesn't either.

Why raise this question? Why call it a valid complaint against Church members?

Its bogus through and through.

For the record, Richard Bushman doesn't regard the complaint as "bogus through and through." In fact, he says "there is some truth to the charge, as far as I am concerned." He goes on to explain, "As a persecuted minority faith, we have been constantly on the defensive from the beginning. For Mormons, much hinges on the inspiration of Joseph Smith, and so there is a natural impulse to defend his character." Bushman acknowledges that impulse in his own writings—he unapologetically writes what he calls "believing history"—although he makes a good-faith effort not to leave out "embarrassing facts so long as they are part of the historical record." I think Bushman largely succeeds in writing honest, responsible history.

The FAIR article cited in this thread, by the way, is not a sober scholarly analysis but a highly defensive, one-sided brief aimed at demolishing the credibility of critics of Joseph Smith. The fact is, responsible historians can and do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits, as they do the transcripts of Joseph's 1826 examination before Justice Neely that Hugh Nibley ridiculed mercilessly in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass.

[CASteinman]

For the record, Richard Bushman doesn't regard the complaint as "bogus through and through."

Neither do I and that is not what I said.

The fact is, responsible historians can and do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits

Hardly at all.

[Nevo]

Neither do I and that is not what I said.

You did. Read your own post.