Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[Tacenda]

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda! Why they almost put Richard Bushman with the ranks of Grant Palmer (I don't mind Grant, BTW). Really surprised me, in fact I think she would have something to say about several of you here. What do you all think of this? Are they right? Are some of you church historians trying to rewrite history? Or are the Stoddards up in the night, and are they heading for a faith crisis by not excepting the real truth?

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Tacenda

[Oliver_Cowdery]

Rewritting history has gotten a bad wrap.   I see a few good reasons to rewrite history, including:

• Many histories are factually incorrect and do need to be rewritten.  We have greater access to the historical record today than what older historians had.
• Many histories were written from outdated view points.  There are plenty of histories that frame events in the context of the time the history was written rather than in the time the events being described happened.  I had an old LDS history book which frames church history events as a example of how to fight communism. I had another book that interprets the Book of Revelation as being the events of Operations Desert Storm.  And I currently have yet other books on my shelf that defend the Kinderhook plates as authentic (as was the old LDS position). Those view points don't hold up well in retrospect. There are also racists or sexists points of view in some histories that are simply unacceptable today.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda! Why they almost put Richard Bushman with the ranks of Grant Palmer (I don't mind Grant, BTW). Really surprised me, in fact I think she would have something to say about several of you here. What do you all think of this? Are they right? Are some of you church historians trying to rewrite history? Or are the Stoddards up in the night, and are they heading for a faith crisis by not excepting the real truth?

 

I haven't listened to the interview, but I'll give my thoughts based on your summary.  

1. Yes, Bushman and other historians are trying to re-write history.  All historians try to re-write history its part of the craft.  The idea that the prior history was unbiased and that the new history is also unbiased is a fallacy.  

2. Bushman is correct when he said that the dominant narrative of church history is not true.  Historians in 2016 have access to much more source material, and are attempting to be more transparent and more forthright when it comes to the complexities of the human experience and the reality of what may have happened concerning historical events.  I really appreciate this, and am glad for the scholarship being done. 

3. Stoddards - I suspect that they suffer from a myopic view of the church and its history.  They assume that whatever stories they've been told during their upbringing are true, yet they haven't done the research and put in the effort read through all the sources and try to make objective observations.  Essentially the Stoddards are just protecting their position in a very apologetic way, without rigorous critical thinking and evaluation. 

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda! Why they almost put Richard Bushman with the ranks of Grant Palmer (I don't mind Grant, BTW). Really surprised me, in fact I think she would have something to say about several of you here. What do you all think of this? Are they right? Are some of you church historians trying to rewrite history? Or are the Stoddards up in the night, and are they heading for a faith crisis by not excepting the real truth?

 

I didn't listen, but they sound a bit looney.  I saw the site yesterday and perused for a bit, but lost interest. 

[ERayR]

To paraphrase the immortal Obi Wan Kenobe, All history is true, from a certain point of view.

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda! Why they almost put Richard Bushman with the ranks of Grant Palmer (I don't mind Grant, BTW). Really surprised me, in fact I think she would have something to say about several of you here. What do you all think of this? Are they right? Are some of you church historians trying to rewrite history? Or are the Stoddards up in the night, and are they heading for a faith crisis by not excepting the real truth?

 

Deleted

                                                

Edited December 21, 2016 by ERayR

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to this radio show..http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/.  It appears that this website... http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ ...is throwing some of you LDS scholars, or historians under the bus. This Hannah Stoddard, and her father James F. Stoddard the Third, from their website said that Richard Bushman isn't a believer and that he took things out of context in his book "Rough Stone Rolling". In fact the interviewer on the radio show called what Bushman says, propaganda! Why they almost put Richard Bushman with the ranks of Grant Palmer (I don't mind Grant, BTW). Really surprised me, in fact I think she would have something to say about several of you here. What do you all think of this? Are they right? Are some of you church historians trying to rewrite history? Or are the Stoddards up in the night, and are they heading for a faith crisis by not excepting the real truth?

 

The Stoddards seem to disagree with the approach being taken by Bushman and others (as cited on the link you provided) and I think that they (the Stoddards) are making a sincere attempt at answering questions in a way that fits with the current dominant LDS narrative.

I've read their first "answer" to the issue of Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl.  Stoddard's answer is a rather weak apologetic type response that, in my opinion, just further emphasizes the need for Bushman's approach.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a Testimony of Church History. 

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Stoddards seem to disagree with the approach being taken by Bushman and others (as cited on the link you provided) and I think that they (the Stoddards) are making a sincere attempt at answering questions in a way that fits with the current dominant LDS narrative.

I've read their first "answer" to the issue of Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl.  Stoddard's answer is a rather weak apologetic type response that, in my opinion, just further emphasizes the need for Bushman's approach.

Prior to the Victorian Era marriage to 14 year old's was legal.

[provoman]

 I just looked, and I can get Rough Stone Rolling from Deseret Book. I think it is accurate to say (willing to edit my comment if wrong) that Deseret Book is connected/associated with the LDS Church. If Bushman is such a bad seed, and Rough Stone Rolling so objectionable, then I confidently suspect that Deseret Book would not carry the book.

Are we mortals fallible? Yes. Was Joseph Smith perfect? No, and I he appears to suggest as much in his own history. Is Joseph Smith the Prophet of God, through whom the Gospel was restored. Yes.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Prior to the Victorian Era marriage to 14 year old's was legal.

Okay, well you'll probably like Stoddard's article.

Legal, however, is an odd position to argue since there wasn't a legal marriage between Joseph and Helen Mar.

[Tacenda]

I was disheartened to read on another board a comment by a young man about to leave on a mission that came across the CES letter. He's due to leave in April. Now he doesn't know if he can serve knowing what he does. 

What is the church to do? I've been at this for years, and actually have almost come full circle. I see that his mission would be a wonderful thing if the mission president or the church leaders will give him a break and not expect him to know without a shadow of doubt that the church is true. But come to think of it, this happens a lot. Missionaries get their testimony while serving. But then a lot of them lose it afterward.

This man will stand to go through something really difficult if he backs out. I wonder if he should just go and let the chips fall where they may. I think any service done at this age is good. Maybe he can go thinking it's like a service mission. Thank goodness this is the direction the church is going also.

I hope the church can figure out a way to fix this difficult time in history. I think the church knows how many stop belief in God when they quit belief in the church. Just feel for so many going through a faith crisis. I've been there for so long. So maybe this site is good to stave off a faith crisis but maybe it's just a bandaid too.

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay, well you'll probably like Stoddard's article.

Legal, however, is an odd position to argue since there wasn't a legal marriage between Joseph and Helen Mar.

Haven't read him. So I can't say. Common law marriages were quite common in that era.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't listened to the interview, but I'll give my thoughts based on your summary.  

1. Yes, Bushman and other historians are trying to re-write history.  All historians try to re-write history its part of the craft.  The idea that the prior history was unbiased and that the new history is also unbiased is a fallacy.  

I think "revise" or "update" would be a more apt descriptor.  "Re-write" sounds rather excessive.

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

2. Bushman is correct when he said that the dominant narrative of church history is not true.  Historians in 2016 have access to much more source material, and are attempting to be more transparent and more forthright when it comes to the complexities of the human experience and the reality of what may have happened concerning historical events.  I really appreciate this, and am glad for the scholarship being done. 

I think Bro. Bushman's statement, being off-the-cuff, was not an altogether accurate statement of his position.  He made this remark in a small group setting, and in response to another participant's use of the phrase "dominant narrative".  See here:

He has since clarified his position here:

Quote

I have been using the phrase “reconstruct the narrative” in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.  The Joseph Smith Papers offer a reconstructed narrative, so do some of the “Gospel Topics” essays.  The short First Vision film in the Church Museum of History mentions six accounts of Joseph’s experience and draws on all of them.  That is all reconstructing the narrative.  I got the phrase from a young woman who reported that she and her husband had both been through faith crises.  She had come back; he had remained alienated.  But both of them had to reconstruct the narrative.  We have to include, for example, the fact that that the first words to Joseph in the First Vision were:  “Your sins are forgiven.”  That makes us look again at his life and realize how important a part forgiveness played.  Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story.  A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display.  That would not have happened even five years ago.  The list goes on and on.

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.  I still believe in gold plates.  I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration.  I think he was sincere in saying he saw God.  The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

If anyone has questions about what I believe, I would be happy to hear from him or her.  I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.

I think some critics of the Church, and also some disaffected individuals, have attempted to appropriate Bro. Bushman's remark and use it as evidence that he (and/or others in the Church) are moving toward an ahistorical, non-revelatory, historicity-is-irrelevant-anyway approach to the fundamental truth claims of the the Restoration.  I don't think that is what is happening.

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

3. Stoddards - I suspect that they suffer from a myopic view of the church and its history.  They assume that whatever stories they've been told during their upbringing are true, yet they haven't done the research and put in the effort read through all the sources and try to make objective observations.  Essentially the Stoddards are just protecting their position in a very apologetic way, without rigorous critical thinking and evaluation. 

Hmm.  I wonder what the Stoddards would say about the display in the Church History Museum that includes large color photographs of Joseph Smith's seerstone and a brief summary of its role in the translation process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was disheartened to read on another board a comment by a young man about to leave on a mission that came across the CES letter. He's due to leave in April. Now he doesn't know if he can serve knowing what he does. 

What is the church to do? I've been at this for years, and actually have almost come full circle. I see that his mission would be a wonderful thing if the mission president or the church leaders will give him a break and not expect him to know without a shadow of doubt that the church is true. But come to think of it, this happens a lot. Missionaries get their testimony while serving. But then a lot of them lose it afterward.

This man will stand to go through something really difficult if he backs out. I wonder if he should just go and let the chips fall where they may. I think any service done at this age is good. Maybe he can go thinking it's like a service mission. Thank goodness this is the direction the church is going also.

I hope the church can figure out a way to fix this difficult time in history. I think the church knows how many stop belief in God when they quit belief in the church. Just feel for so many going through a faith crisis. I've been there for so long. So maybe this site is good to stave off a faith crisis but maybe it's just a bandaid too.

I'm on that board too. That post was posted by a young woman.  Her plea for help on the faithful board was deleted.  It seems so cruel to send missionaries out there that are so unprepared to deal with the contents of the CES letter.  The missionaries are only allowed to read from a few books.  They are increasingly less informed than the investigators they hope to teach.

See the Missionary Handbook page 27.

Quote

"Read only books, magazines, and other materials authorized by the Church (see "Study", pp. 15-15")

On my mission I was only allowed to read from the scriptures, the missonary library, The Missionary Guide, Church new, and the lesson manuals (but only if I was giving the lesson in church). But it may be worse now.  It appears that the current Missionary Library has now been scaled back to merely four books!    

How is anyone supposed to deal with the information in the CES letter using so few resources?

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't have a Testimony of Church History. 

I find that it is often better to use the phrase "foundation claims of the LDS church" rather than "Church History".

The difference is that some folks don't see why there is all the fuss about Church History.  However when it is put to them in terms that describe the foundation of their religion they better understand the concern and why foundation claim in church history can be part of one's testimony.

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Haven't read him. So I can't say. Common law marriages were quite common in that era.

Her.  LDSAnswers.org.

Joseph and Helen's marriage wouldn't have satisfied the requirements for a common law marriage either.  Not sure what your point it.

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was disheartened to read on another board a comment by a young man about to leave on a mission that came across the CES letter. He's due to leave in April. Now he doesn't know if he can serve knowing what he does. 

What is the church to do? I've been at this for years, and actually have almost come full circle. I see that his mission would be a wonderful thing if the mission president or the church leaders will give him a break and not expect him to know without a shadow of doubt that the church is true. But come to think of it, this happens a lot. Missionaries get their testimony while serving. But then a lot of them lose it afterward.

This man will stand to go through something really difficult if he backs out. I wonder if he should just go and let the chips fall where they may. I think any service done at this age is good. Maybe he can go thinking it's like a service mission. Thank goodness this is the direction the church is going also.

I hope the church can figure out a way to fix this difficult time in history. I think the church knows how many stop belief in God when they quit belief in the church. Just feel for so many going through a faith crisis. I've been there for so long. So maybe this site is good to stave off a faith crisis but maybe it's just a bandaid too.

The Brethren (and many others) seem to be working on it.

We need to find a way for our young people going on missions to be aware of the facts detailed in the CES Letter and not lose their faith/testimonies in the process.  Many will be exposed to those issues once they are serving, better to be prepared.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder what the Stoddards would say about the display in the Church History Museum that includes large color photographs of Joseph Smith's seerstone and a brief summary of its role in the translation process.

I got push back when I taught about the seer stone in church.  A lot of people don't live in Utah or anywhere near it. The museum exhibits are still new. 

Cognitive Dissonance plays a big role there too.  The seer stone was regarded as an anti-mormon lie by so many people.  It takes time for an idea to go from an anti-mormon lie to being part of the narrative.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I'm on that board too. That post was posted by a young woman.  Her plea for help on the faithful board was deleted.  It seems so cruel to send missionaries out there that are so unprepared to deal with the contents of the CES letter.  The missionaries are only allowed to read from a few books.  They are increasingly less informed than the investigators they hope to teach.

See the Missionary Handbook page 27.

On my mission I was only allowed to read from the scriptures, the missonary library, The Missionary Guide, Church new, and the lesson manuals (but only if I was giving the lesson in church). But it may be worse now.  It appears that the current Missionary Library has now been scaled back to merely four books!    

How is anyone supposed to deal with the information in the CES letter using so few resources?

Thank you for the correction OC! I'm not a member of the board. But will look at it from time to time, more recently. It would be good to have more TBM's on there to balance out replies to people like this young woman.

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I find that it is often better to use the phrase "foundation claims of the LDS church" rather than "Church History".

The difference is that some folks don't see why there is all the fuss about Church History.  However when it is put to them in terms that describe the foundation of their religion they better understand the concern and why foundation claim in church history can be part of one's testimony.

 

Why am I not surprised? One of the "Foundational Claims" of Christianity is the testimony of ancient prophets of some 2000 years ago. Explanations presented in the Bible have yet to be substantiated. As I said I don't have a Testimony of Church History, and that includes the New Testament history. 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Prior to the Victorian Era marriage to 14 year old's was legal.

The secret polygamist marriage between Joseph and a 14 year old girl was not a legal marriage.

But as a thought experiment let's say that it was all legal. For the sake of argument,  let's assume that Brigham Young's and Warren Jeff's young teen wives were legal. What difference does that make?  It's still morally wrong.  Mormon's are supposed to respect the laws, but we don't derive our morals from the law, do we?

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I got push back when I taught about the seer stone in church.  A lot of people don't live in Utah or anywhere near it. The museum exhibits are still new. 

Cognitive Dissonance plays a big role there too.  The seer stone was regarded as an anti-mormon lie by so many people.  It takes time for an idea to go from an anti-mormon lie to being part of the narrative.

Exactly... and thus the need for a reconstructed narrative.  I wish the Stoddards could understand that rather than falling back on old apologetic responses like they did in their first "Answer".

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay, well you'll probably like Stoddard's article.

Legal, however, is an odd position to argue since there wasn't a legal marriage between Joseph and Helen Mar.

SEE http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/family-life-courtship-and-marriage

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/family-life-courtship-and-marriage

Not sure what your point it.