Ben Park’s American Zion

[Calm]

Anyone read it yet?  Looking for info on the book for someone, found a few positive reviews, but it is always nice to hear from people I know the paradigm they will read the book with (whether a more critical, believing, traditional, academic and/or more casual reader).  Published this year, but thought someone here might have placed it on top of their pile of books to be read.

https://www.associationmormonletters.org/reviews/older-reviews/park-american-zion-a-new-history-of-mormonism-reviewed-by-conor-hilton/

And if someone could remind me about Ben Park…my brain isn’t retrieving much this morning, I remember him as a respected academic, on the nonbelieving side of Mormon Studies, though possibly still a member.

Edited August 5, 2024 by Calm

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And if someone could remind me about Ben Park…my brain isn’t retrieving much this morning, I remember him as a respected academic, on the nonbelieving side of Mormon Studies, though possibly still a member.

Ben used to be the editor of the Mormon Studies Review for the Maxwell Institute. The Interpreter folk really hated him, and after an op-ed on the Church and gay rights, some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website. He's a good dude, and years ago we were on the BYU Summer Seminar together.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Quote

And if someone could remind me about Ben Park…my brain isn’t retrieving much this morning, I remember him as a respected academic, on the nonbelieving side of Mormon Studies, though possibly still a member.

Ben used to be the editor of the Mormon Studies Review for the Maxwell Institute. The Interpreter folk really hated him, and after an op-ed on the Church and gay rights, some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website. He's a good dude, and years ago we were on the BYU Summer Seminar together.

It looks like "{t}he Interpreter folk" critiqued his scholarship, not him as a person (and even then, "really hated him" seems a bit much).

See, e.g., here: A Uni-Dimensional Picture of a Multi-Faceted Nauvoo Community

Quote

Richard E. Bennett

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40 (2020): 1-14

 

Review of Benjamin E. Park, Kingdom of Nauvoo: The Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier (New York City: Liveright Publishing, 2020). 336 pages. $28.95 (hardback).

Abstract: Benjamin Park recently wrote a substantive revisionist history of Nauvoo, Illinois, the one-time Church capital under the leadership of Joseph Smith, Jr. This article serves as a critical review of Park’s work. Congratulating the author for placing this well-known Latter-day Saint story within the larger Jacksonian American democratic context, as well as for utilizing a great many primary sources hardly used before, Richard Bennett in this critical review assesses both the strengths and the weaknesses of this important new book. While complimenting Park for his significant contributions on politics, women, and race in Nauvoo, Bennett nonetheless finds much to criticize in what he sees as a unidimensional, highly political study that disregards many previous studies of Nauvoo and fails to address many other critically important facets of the city’s life and history from its inception in 1839 until the Saints’ departure in 1846.

Bennett seems to take issue with Park's failure to engage previous scholarship about Nauvoo.  

Quote

I eagerly awaited obtaining my own review copy. And being as vain, perhaps, as the next reviewer, I immediately flipped through its many footnotes (unfortunately, there is no bibliography) to see how many of my own books and articles were referenced, if not relied upon then at least as counterpoint to the author’s points of view. I was saddened to see that not one of my published works over the past three decades on so many aspects of Nauvoo history made the grade — including articles on the Nauvoo Charter, the Council of Fifty, the Battle [Page 2]of Nauvoo, the ensuing Nauvoo Poor Camps, the sale and burning of the Nauvoo Temple, “Lamanism” and Alpheus Cutler’s dream of aligning with the Native Americans — not even my book-length studies of the exodus from Nauvoo in February 1846.
...
Crestfallen, I then began to look more deeply to see if the same fate had befallen some of my contemporaries, especially those of us who tend to see Nauvoo through a much wider lens than Park has chosen to do. It didn’t take long to see that earlier generations of scholars I deeply respect suffered much the same fate, including the likes of B. H. Roberts, T. Edgar Lyon, Glen M. Leonard, Leonard J. Arrington, Kenneth W. Godfrey, Brian Hales, and many others. Hardly if at all mentioned, their works have obviously fallen out of favor in Ben Park’s new and revisionist political history of Nauvoo.
...
Failing to engage so much of previous scholarship, Park nevertheless has a particular point of view, as if he’s the first and only one to espouse it — a deeply troubling error.

Nevertheless, he has some good things to say about Park:

Quote

Relying heavily on manuscript sources previously unavailable, including the minutes of the Nauvoo High Council, the Nauvoo Relief Society, the Council of Fifty, and the Joseph Smith Papers, Park is to be congratulated for writing a fascinating political history of Nauvoo. A promising American and Latter-day Saint historian, Park places the Nauvoo story within the American context and argues that Nauvoo “failed” because it was too religious, too priesthood theocratic, too undemocratic and frankly too un-American for a rough and tumble American frontier democracy. He also argues that American democracy likewise “failed” because it was too republican, too unprepared, too fragile to accept an uncomfortably theocratic religion within its democratic framework. “The question the Mormons posed was not just about the boundaries of religious liberty,” Park concludes near the end of his book; more to the point, “it concerned the limits of American democracy … [which] was envisioned to manage different interests and grant individual freedoms. With the Mormons, the process broke down” (278–79). Park’s work is, therefore, a must-read for historians of nineteenth century Jacksonian American democracy as a case study in the limits of the great American experiment.

Another review of Park's 2020 book: Sensationalism: A One-sided Perspective

Quote

Susan Easton Black

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 107-110

Review of Benjamin E. Park, Kingdom of Nauvoo: The Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier (New York City: Liveright Publishing, 2020). 336 pages. $28.95 (hardback).

Abstract: While Benjamin Park shows promise as a writer and historian, his book, Kingdom of Nauvoo, opts for poorly sourced sensationalism instead of illuminating the joy of Nauvoo’s true history.

Some excerpts:

Quote

Park is at the beginning of what could be an illustrious career. Through the years, works of Benjamin Park may fill library shelves and lead to multiple invitations to speak to receptive audiences, such as his invitation to speak earlier this year to the Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University.
...

Putting aside the cares of the day, I blocked out an afternoon and sat down to read. I was delighted to find that Benjamin Park has a flair for writing. His words are accessible to scholar and lay reader alike, a rare talent indeed.

But what of the content of Kingdom of Nauvoo? The emphasis on polygamy, Council of Fifty, and denigrating quotes and thoughts attributed to Joseph Smith that went unsourced left me feeling sorry for the young author and wondering who had been his mentor. I found myself wishing I was at my home in Nauvoo, having an afternoon with the author at the site where the Council of Fifty once met, talking about the individuals who attended their meetings and reviewing with him some of their journals. I wanted to show him the parade grounds of the Nauvoo Legion, the tucked-away graveyards, and Emma’s rentals. I wanted the author to see the remains of small Latter-day Saint settlements in and around Nauvoo and the Mississippi River at dusk. Most of all, I wanted to share with the author additional facts and clear up the speculations in his work that mar the publication and his future career.

The bottom line is that I came away from my first read of Kingdom of Nauvoo knowing the author missed the joy of Nauvoo’s true history as he reached for sensational topics that sell in today’s market — polygamy and the Council of Fifty. I asked myself why this author, with an academic background from Brigham Young University and a bright academic future, aligned himself with scholarship that degrades a prophet of God. I came up with no answer.

The difference between young Benjamin Park and myself is more than longevity in the field of Latter-day Saint Church history. It is perspective. In his prologue, Park begins, “A gloomy pall hung over the Mormon city of Nauvoo when Joseph Smith and his closest allies gathered to replace the American Constitution” (2). This sensationalistic beginning hooks readers into moving on to succeeding chapters, but it starts the book on a faulty premise. The author has taken a leap that more cautious historians in yesteryear rejected. The author acknowledges that the “proposed Mormon constitution was incomplete and required further revision” (2) but does not hesitate to conclude it was still a constitution to replace the U.S. Constitution.

So Easton Black seems to find Park's treatment of Nauvoo as leaning toward sensationalism.

A 2014 comment about Park by Bill Hamblin: The Apologetics of Richness?

Quote

In a recent blog comment Ben Park describes “a different approach to apologetics,” apparently favored by some young scholars.  He describes it by quoting Richard Bushman:

These younger scholars have a new attitude toward Mormon apologetics. They are no longer so interested in defending the faith in the old sense. In the time of Nibley, the aim of scholarship was to prove Mormonism true. In the new age, the aim of Mormon scholarship is to find the truth about Mormonism. Among the scholars writing today are many who are as proud of the Church, as interested in its flourishing, and as committed to its mission as the previous age, but they follow a new maxim, voiced tellingly by James Faulconer: Richness is the new proof. Rather than attempting scientific proofs of Mormonism as a previous age tried to do, they point to its cultural depth, its scope, its usefulness, in short, its richness. The unspoken assumption of this rising group is that Mormonism will flourish best if its true nature is uncovered and investigated, not if it is proven perfect and infallible.  (http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/the-new-mormon-studies-review/, comment 26.)

We need to begin with a couple of clarifications.  No apologist I know tries to “prove Mormonism is true.”  No apologist I know believes there are any “scientific proofs of Mormonism.”  (There can be no “scientific” proof of history–which cannot be empirically investigated since the past no longer exists–nor of religious claims, which are inherently parahistorical.)  No apologist I know claims the church is “perfect and infallible.”  All Apologists I know reject the possibility of establishing such proof using any known scholarly method.  Second, if Mormonism is indeed “true,” then understanding that fact is indeed “finding the truth about Mormonism.”  In other words, the “truth about Mormonism” may well be that “Mormonism is true.”  To me, Bushman’s description of “old” apologetics is a straw man caricature.

Let’s turn to Park’s claim (via Faulconer) that “richness is the new proof” of the new apologetics.  First of all, richness is not a methodology, and there is no academic by which one can discover richness.  It is a quality–and a subjective quality at that–that one finds or fails to find in a text, or a religion, or a piece of music.  There is simply no way to define “richness” or determine if a text is rich or not.  It is really not at all uncommon for one person to discover richness where another finds only banality.

When I study the scriptures of other religions, I inevitably discover that believers maintain that their scriptures are “rich.”  Indeed, one could argue that if a text does not possess richness, it will never succeed as scripture.  Muslims find “richness” in the Qur’an.  Hindus find “richness” in the Bhagavad-Gita.  Buddhist find “richness” in the Dhammapada.  And, when I read those books, I find great richness there too.  Is my discovery of this richness in the Qur’an sufficient, or even a moderately valid reason to believe that Muhammad is prophet?  For that matter, I find the works of Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton to be incredibly rich.  So?  Does it mean their works are scripture?    Does it mean Milton was a prophet of God?  Does that mean their works are even inspired by God?  While one may be able to argue that if a text is not rich it can not be scripture, it does not follow that if a text is rich, it must be scripture.

Of course the discovery of the richness of the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture is hardly something new.  People have been doing this since 1829 when they first read the dictated manuscript.  In a methodological sense, richness is a part of the broader argument from complexity, which has been used in Book of Mormon studies for decades.  The problem here is that, even if a scholar believes he discovers richness in a text, it doesn’t “prove” anything except that the scholar believes that the text is “rich.”  Park’s claim that “richness is the new proof,” is, upon reflection, a vacuous one.  For richness, in and of itself, proves nothing.

So, let’s imagine that Park were able to demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that the Book of Mormon is indeed “rich.”  What would that “prove”?  That the book is ancient history?  That it is authentic revelation?  That Jesus is the Christ?  That the book is “inspired fiction”?  That Joseph Smith was a literary genius?  That people who accept a text as scripture inevitably discover richness in that text?  Or merely that an individual reader believes the text is rich based on a subjective evaluation?

Given its problematic nature, what exactly does the claim “richness is the new proof” really mean?  And why would adopting an apologetics of richness require that we abandon all other apologetic endeavors?

Here Hamblin seems to take exception to A) Park's (mis)characterization of Latter-day Saint "apologetics" and "apologists," B) Park's disparagement of apologetic efforts generally, and C) Park's nebulous alternative to apologetics ("richness").

A 2017 article by Steve Densley: Should We Apologize for Apologetics?

It includes an extensive entry about Park:

Quote

Following appropriately on the words of Michael Ash, the discussion then shifts to one regarding the place of apologetics in academia. Benjamin Park argues that it has no place, contending that it would be best for Mormon studies and for apologetics alike if there were a “wall of separation” between the two disciplines. However, it is unclear what Park means by this or how it would be accomplished. It would be strange to think that Park actually suggests that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, which holds itself out as an institution engaged in “Mormon studies,” should prohibit work that defends the Church, either by responding to critics or by publishing material that helps strengthen commitment to the Church. It would also be strange to think that Park may be calling [Page 117]for FairMormon to discontinue work that constitutes “Mormon studies.” How can an organization defend Mormonism and not engage in a study of Mormonism? Should a Mormon studies program discriminate against work that happens to strengthen faith in the Church? If it overtly did so, could it still maintain academic credibility, or would it come to be seen as an organization with an ax to grind against the Church?

Park provides two examples of how what he has been suggesting has worked. The first is Paul Reeve’s publication Religion of a Different Color with Oxford University Press. However, as Park points out, Reeve appeared at the FairMormon conference to discuss this work. So it is unclear how this constitutes a successful separation of Mormon studies and apologetics. Park explains that Reeve addressed non-Mormon audiences as well as Mormon ones. Similarly, the other supposed example of a successful approach was that of Patrick Mason, who published The Mormon Menace with Oxford University Press and also Planted with Deseret Book, a strange example, since these works address two entirely different subjects. In any event, the suggestion here is that in order to maintain a successful separation of Mormon studies and apologetics, a scholar must address non-Mormon and Mormon groups separately. Does this mean the Maxwell Institute should not write for Mormons? Should FairMormon not reach out to non-Mormons or respond to critics outside the Church? One is left wondering whether creating a “wall of separation” between apologetics and Mormon studies would be either workable or desirable. And one is again struck by Park’s failure to account for Mormon studies — like all academic disciplines — as having its own set of agendas, biases and presuppositions that might influence its product every bit as much as they would that of a religious apologist. Ironically, Park himself offers an “apologetic” (i.e., a reasoned argument for a proposition that is not a question of pure fact) against apologetics.

I am curious about this seeming aversion, bordering on hostility, which some Latter-day Saints exhibit against "apologetic" efforts.  I am reminded of the comments from Spencer Fluhman on this issue (where he, like Park, seems to dislike the notion of scholarly apologetic efforts), as well as Elder Holland's 2019 remarks to the Maxwell Institute (which may or may not have been something of a gentle-but-clear rebuke of Fluhman's position.

Thanks,

-Smac

ETA: Huh.  It looks like Park and Fluhman had/have a mentor-mentee relationship:

Quote

How did your relationship with the Maxwell Institute begin? Was there a formal application process to be a Visiting Fellow or was it setup through personal networking?

Benjamin Park: Spencer Fluhman, the Institute’s director, taught the first class I took when I returned to BYU after my mission. That class shaped my love for history, and I have been fortunate to have him as a mentor ever since. When I was trying to figure out a way to finish my current Nauvoo book project, I reached out to him about a possible writing fellowship. To his credit and generosity, he agreed, and we worked through the necessary paperwork and application materials to make it happen.
...
Are there any scholars at the Maxwell Institute who have influenced your approach to history? Similarly, do think there are any Maxwell Institute scholars who have been influenced by you?

Benjamin Park: I have no idea if I have influenced anyone else, but I am certainly keen to the people who have influenced me. Spencer Fluhman has always served as an idol for my historical approach, particularly using Mormonism to view wider historical issues. Terryl Givens, who is also on fellowship, is a writer whose style I hope to emulate.

 

Edited August 5, 2024 by smac97

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

It looks like "{t}he Interpreter folk" critiqued his scholarship, not him as a person (and even then, "really hated him" seems a bit much).

 

There was a lot said and going on behind the scenes, and I stand by what I said.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Quote

It looks like "{t}he Interpreter folk" critiqued his scholarship, not him as a person (and even then, "really hated him" seems a bit much).

There was a lot said and going on behind the scenes, and I stand by what I said.

I understand your perspective.  I am sometimes privy to "inside" information which I find credible.  Generally speaking, though, I do not share such information publicly, and if I do share it, I do not do so with an expectation that others accept it on a "just trust me" basis.

Online, anonymous, unsubstantiated, multiple hearsay about X "hating" Y doesn't carry much probative weight.  It's a serious charge, after all.  As is the "some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website" bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

if I do share it, I do not do so with an expectation that others accept it on a "just trust me" basis.

You can distrust me if you want. I do not care at all.

 

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Online, anonymous, unsubstantiated, multiple hearsay about X "hating" Y doesn't carry much probative weight.  It's a serious charge, after all. 

You can doubt me if you like, and I'll still love you as my brother. (Though, of course, you'd have to ask my brothers what that means.)

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As is the "some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website" bit.

Well, he was scrubbed from the site, and I know it wasn't the decision of those at the MI, and I know of at least one other person who had their name removed as well in protest of that decision.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'm always tantalized by gossip, and take perverse glee in hearing the dirt from folks claiming to be in the know.  And while I try to keep my public responses on par with Smac's level of mature information categorizing, I often fail. 

Time to go do another cleansing self-ablation on the topic.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/gossip

Edited August 6, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Devobah]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Anyone read it yet?  Looking for info on the book for someone, found a few positive reviews, but it is always nice to hear from people I know the paradigm they will read the book with (whether a more critical, believing, traditional, academic and/or more casual reader).  Published this year, but thought someone here might have placed it on top of their pile of books to be read.

https://www.associationmormonletters.org/reviews/older-reviews/park-american-zion-a-new-history-of-mormonism-reviewed-by-conor-hilton/

And if someone could remind me about Ben Park…my brain isn’t retrieving much this morning, I remember him as a respected academic, on the nonbelieving side of Mormon Studies, though possibly still a member.

I mean the only thing I know about the guy is that he wrote the book. It has been recommended by my non-believing friend once or twice. 

[Doctor Steuss]

Quote

So Easton Black seems to find Park's treatment of Nauvoo as leaning toward sensationalism.

I'd imagine it'd be difficult to provide a comprehensive history of early Mormonism in Nauvoo without it seeming at least moderately sensationalist.  Polygamy, the advent to Joseph's theodemocracy, the formulation of new doctrines and practices (i.e. endowment, baptisms for the dead, the second anointing, etc.), the quasi-chess game played between the community of Saints and those hostile towards them, etc.

It was probably one of the spiciest and most colorful chapters in Mormonism. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Quote

if I do share it, I do not do so with an expectation that others accept it on a "just trust me" basis.

You can distrust me if you want. I do not care at all.

It's not really about "distrust{ing}" you.  The circumstances, in the aggregate, do not involve indicia of the allegations having probative value, and some indicia that circumspection is in order.

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Quote

Online, anonymous, unsubstantiated, multiple hearsay about X "hating" Y doesn't carry much probative weight.  It's a serious charge, after all. 

You can doubt me if you like, and I'll still love you as my brother. (Though, of course, you'd have to ask my brothers what that means.)

I hope we can get along as well.

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Quote

As is the "some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website" bit.

Well, he was scrubbed from the site,

Was he?

https://mi.byu.edu/tag/benjamin-e-park

https://mi.byu.edu/intro-msr-v1/

Quote

Benjamin E. Park is an associate editor of the Mormon Studies Review and a PhD candidate in history at the University of Cambridge. 

https://mi.byu.edu/announcing-the-new-mormon-studies-review/

Quote

D. Morgan Davis, a research fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, and Benjamin E. Park, a PhD candidate in history at the University of Cambridge, will serve as associate editors for the Review.

https://mi.byu.edu/mip-park/

Quote

The rise and fall of Nauvoo, with Benjamin E. Park [MIPodcast #117]

Historian Benjamin E. Park argues that the story of the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo, Illinois is essential to understanding the bigger story of early American history. Writes Park, 'The question Mormons posed to the young American nation was not just about the boundaries of religious liberty; it concerned the very limits of democracy. And with the Mormons, the process of democracy broke down.'

In this episode, Dr. Park joins us to talk about his new book, Kingdom of Nauvoo: The Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier.

About the Guest

Benjamin E. Park is assistant professor of history at Sam Houston State University and co-editor of the Mormon Studies Review. He received degrees from Brigham Young University (BA, English and history), the University of Edinburgh (MSc, Theology in History), and the University of Cambridge (MPhil, Political Thought and Intellectual History; PhD, History). Dr. Park's research focuses on the intersection between religion, culture, and democratic thought between the American Revolution and the Civil War, often within an Atlantic context. He is the author of American Nationalisms: Imagining Union in an Age of Revolutions, and has written op-eds and essays for Washington Post, Newsweek, Religion & Politics, Talking Points Memo, Religion Dispatches, Dallas Morning News, Salt Lake Tribune, Religion News Service, and Patheos.

https://mi.byu.edu/p-21240

Quote

VIDEO—Benjamin Park, “Kingdom of Nauvoo”

February 26, 0020 12:00 AM

Benjamin E. Park's guest lecture is available to watch online, "Kingdom of Nauvoo: The Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo7olgVkkWo

Benjamin E. Park's new book, Kingdom of Nauvoo, excavates the brief, tragic life of a lost Mormon city, demonstrating that the Latter-day Saints are essential to understanding American history writ large. Using newly accessible sources, Park argues that far from being outsiders, the Mormons were representative of their era in their distrust of democracy and their attempt to forge a sovereign society of their own.

In this guest lecture, Park will discuss 'the rise and fall of a religious empire on the American frontier.'

About the Speaker

Benjamin E. Park is assistant professor of history at Sam Houston State University and co-editor of the Mormon Studies Review. He received degrees from Brigham Young University (BA, English and history), the University of Edinburgh (MSc, Theology in History), and the University of Cambridge (MPhil, Political Thought and Intellectual History; PhD, History). Dr. Park's research focuses on the intersection between religion, culture, and democratic thought between the American Revolution and the Civil War, often within an Atlantic context. He is the author of American Nationalisms: Imagining Union in an Age of Revolutions, and has written op-eds and essays for Washington Post, Newsweek, Religion & Politics, Talking Points Memo, Religion Dispatches, Dallas Morning News, Salt Lake Tribune, Religion News Service, and Patheos.

https://mi.byu.edu/p-15543

Quote

Talking politics and religion at Thanksgiving

November 15, 0018 12:00 AM

Blair Hodges

People say two topics should be avoided in polite company, especially around the table at Thanksgiving dinner: religion and politics. Ironically, the oldest Thanksgiving celebrations were precisely about religion and politics, and they didn't take place on a set date each year. Thanksgiving, like religion itself, could be used to unite people, or to divide them. Professor Benjamin E. Park told the tale on the Maxwell Institute Podcast. If you haven't heard this episode yet, it's the perfect week to check it out!

His online CV is pretty extensive, and appears to cover all his publications prior to, during and after his tenure at the Maxwell Institute.  His CV does not list any publications through the Maxwell Institute.  

He references his BA from BYU, his role as "Co-Editor, Mormon Studies Review," his 2020 "Kingdom of Nauvoo" book, a "current project" entitled "An American Original: Mormonism and the Saga of Religion in the United States," a large number of peer-reviewed articles about the Church:

• “The Danite Constitution and Theories of Democratic Justice in Frontier America,” Brigham Young University Studies Quarterly (forthcoming). 
• “Joseph Smith’s Kingdom of God: The Council of Fifty and the Mormon Challenge to American Democracy,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 87:4 (December 2018): 10291055. 
• “Early Mormon Patriarchy and the Paradoxes of Democratic Religiosity in Jacksonian America,” American Nineteenth Century History 14:2 (Summer 2013): 183-208. 
• “To Fill up the World: Joseph Smith as Urban Planner,” Mormon Historical Studies 14:1 (Spring 2013): 1-27. 
• “The Theology of a Career Convert: Edward Tullidge’s Evolving Identities,” Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought 45:3 (Fall 2012): 38-50. 
• “‘Reasonings Sufficient’: Joseph Smith, Thomas ****, and the Context(s) of Early Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History 38:3 (Summer 2012): 210-224. (Special issue in honor of Richard Bushman.)
• “(Re)Interpreting Early Mormon Thought: Synthesizing Joseph Smith’s Theology and the Process of Religious Formation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44:2 (Summer 2012): 59-88.
• “‘A Uniformity So Complete’: Early Mormon Angelology and Microhistorical Theology,” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 2 (2010): 1-37.
• “Salvation Through a Tabernacle: Joseph Smith, Parley Pratt, and Early Mormon Theologies of Embodiment,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 43:2 (Summer 2010): 1-44.
• “‘Build, Therefore, Your Own World’: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Joseph Smith, and American Antebellum Thought,” Journal of Mormon History 36:1 (Winter 2010): 41-72.  

Various "journal essays and book chapters" regarding the Church:

• “Joseph Smith, Plural Marriage, and Kinship,” in Routledge Handbook on Mormonism and Gender Studies, ed. Amy Hoyt and Taylor Petrey (New York: Routledge, 2020): 75-85.
• “The Precarious Protestant Democracy: Mormon and Catholic Conceptions of Democratic Rule in the 1840s,” in Contingent Citizens: Shifting Perceptions of Latter-day Saints in American Political Culture, ed. Keith Erekson, Brent Rogers, and Spencer McBride (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2020): 42-57. 
• “Kings and Queens of the Kingdom: Gendering the Mormon Theological Narrative,” in Mormon Women’s History: Beyond Biography, ed. Rachel Cope, Amy Easton-Flake, Keith A. Erekson, and Lisa Olsen Tait (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh ****inson University Press, 2017): 209-226. 
• “The Council of Fifty and the Perils of Democratic Governance,” in The Council of Fifty: What the Records Reveal about Mormon History, ed. Matthew Grow and Eric Smith (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2017): 43-54. 
• “A Wall Between Church and Academy,” in Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics, ed. Blair G. Van Dyke and Loyd Isao Ericson (Draper, UT: Kofford Books, 2017): 113-120. 
• “Camelot’s Crucible: The Historiographic Context for Refiner’s Fire,” in “John Brooke’s Refiner’s Fire: A Twentieth Anniversary Retrospective,” Journal of Mormon History 41:4 (Fall 2015): 177-187. 
• “The Book of Mormon and America’s Political and Intellectual Tradition,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (Fall 2014): 174-182. 
• “Parley Pratt’s Writing as Restoration and Redemption,” in “Perspectives on Parley Pratt’s Autobiography: A Roundtable,” Journal of Mormon History 37:1 (Winter, 2011): 158-164. 
• “Developing a Historian Conscience: Wilford Woodruff and the Preservation of History,” Preserving the History of the Latter-day Saints, ed. Steven C. Harper and Rick Turley (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2010): 121-141.

A bunch of "opinion essays" and "book reviews" involving the Church.  

And, of course, a notation of his prior status as "Visiting Fellow, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 2018."

He also lists himself as an invited speaker at BYU in 2020 regarding his "Kingdom of Nauvoo" work.

The CV is apparently somewhat outdated (June 2020).  

So what pieces of Bro. Park's content which he contributed to the Maxwell Institute was "scrubbed from the site"?  When did this "scrubbing" take place?  Was Bro. Park a party to this "scrubbing"?

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

and I know it wasn't the decision of those at the MI,

How do you "know" this?

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

and I know of at least one other person who had their name removed as well in protest of that decision.

Who was this other person?  His/her "name" was "removed" from what?

How do you know this purported name removal was "in protest" of this "decision" to "scrub" Bro. Park's content from the MI website?

Please consider this a CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 6, 2024 by smac97

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Was he?

He was. I'm not saying he was completely removed (which would have been difficult given the nature of some of examples you provided), but he was removed from the listing of past scholars among other places on the site: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024023923/https://mi.byu.edu/scholars/

Fiona Givens was another person scrubbed from the site after being "retired" for offering her opinion that the Holy Ghost was Heavenly Mother in a Q&A following a fireside. 

[the narrator]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

So Easton Black seems to find Park's treatment of Nauvoo as leaning toward sensationalism.

 

Well, to be fair, pretty much the entire Mormon history community finds Black to be an awful historian.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hope we can get along as well.

Well good, since I'm more than happy to get along with anyone who wants to do the same.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Well, to be fair, pretty much the entire Mormon history community finds Black to be an awful historian.

CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

 

Sorry, I don't have a collection of written statements by every Mormon historian out there, so the CFR is a bit ridiculous, I think. For confirmation, just visit the CHD and ask pretty much anyone there what they think of her scholarship. 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Quote

Was he?

He was. I'm not saying he was completely removed (which would have been difficult given the nature of some of examples you provided), but he was removed from the listing of past scholars among other places on the site: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024023923/https://mi.byu.edu/scholars/

Deidre Nicole Green is also not included in the listing of past scholars.

41 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Fiona Givens was another person scrubbed from the site after being "retired" for offering her opinion that the Holy Ghost was Heavenly Mother in a Q&A following a fireside. 

A search of the MI website for "Fiona Givens" returns 31 results.

CFR as to the alleged timing and causality (that she was "'retired' for offering her opinion...").  My recollection is that Sis. Givens left MI in or around May 2021, and she gave her remarks about the Holy Ghost in March 2021.  Sis. Givens listing remained on the MI website as of 04/19/21 but was not present on 06/20/2021.

I commented at the time:

Quote

Quote

I would like more information on the small part of it that talks about Fiona Givens and her leaving the Maxwell Institute.
Anybody know anything?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/08/latter-day-saints-are/

Sounds like Fletcher Stack indulged in a bit of pos hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning:

Quote

In March, Fiona Givens, co-author with husband Terryl of “The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life,” was invited to give a fireside address to members in a Latter-day Saint young single adult ward in Harlem.

More than 200 people signed on to Givens’ Zoom presentation, according to Delaney Plant, who was among them.

Givens shared her studies and research into Heavenly Mother, including multiple biblical accounts in which she believes a female deity is depicted as a pillar of light, Plant reports in an email. “She then made the connection that during the ‘First Vision,’ when Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, he first mentions seeing a pillar of light.”

That shows that “Heavenly Mother was also present during the First Vision,” Plant says Givens concluded.

In answer to a question, Givens discussed whether the Mother God might be synonymous with the Holy Spirit. In the past, the writer has addressed this possibility.

“Is she part of the Godhead? One assumes she is,” Givens told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2013. “So, is she the Holy Spirit? The [scriptural] record is silent on this and so much else that we fall into the sticky quagmire of speculation.”

After her recent remarks, several attendees complained and now Givens is no longer employed by BYU’s Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and is turning down invitations to all speaking engagements.

Givens declined to comment on the fireside or its aftermath, and, though BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed Givens’ departure, she would not detail reasons why, citing personnel policies.

Still, Plant wants answers.

“I find the whole situation quite confusing and upsetting,” she writes. “I feel that BYU is now silencing a very important voice in regards to a doctrinal topic that is not wrong to speak on.”

A few thoughts:

1. "Plant wants answers," but since BYU's internal policies prohibits it from providing them and Givens isn't commenting, there's not much more to say.

2. I think it's potentially problematic that Sis. Givens used a Church meeting to preach her personal speculations and opinions.  This isn't the first time I've heard Sis. Givens opine about things that are unsettled and speculative.  And generally that's just fine and dandy, provided that the time, place and manner of sharing such opnings are appropriate.  I wonder if Sis. Givens' remarks were inappropriate for the context in which they were given.  I wonder if she was given the opportunity to preach the doctrines of the Restored Gospel, but instead shared her personal speculations.  She's done this before. 
...
 

The issue, then, could have less to do with the speculative stuff and more to do with the time, place and manner in which she shared it.

3. The article states that "several attendees {at the fireside, a meeting of the Church} complained" about what Sis. Givens said.  I wonder if she went a bit too far in her remarks, particularly given that:

• A) she was speaking in a Church meeting,
• B) she was possibly/apparently invited to speak in some sort of representative capacity, whether it be a representative of the Church, or of BYU and the Maxwell Institute,
• C) she seems to be willing to mix her personal speculations/opinions with established doctrine, even to the point of contradicting the official teachings of the Church (which is problematic when she does not while speaking in a church meeting and/or in a representative capacity), and
• D) she has apparently done this sort of think before (in 2016 Jana Riess described Sis. Givens as "a Deseret Book author who has been traveling widely in response to local invitations (with her husband, author and renowned intellectual Terryl Givens) giving firesides and  touring with the 'Time Out for Women' series that is sponsored by Deseret Book").

...
4. To the extent that Sis. Givens' fireside talk affected her relationship with the Maxwell Institute, the issue does not seem to be the topic.  Plenty of people in the Church have talked about this, including Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah article that was published in 2000 by the Maxwell Institute.  See also this 2012 article by Warren Aston: The Other Half of Heaven: Debunking Myths about Heavenly Mother
...
 

5. Our Mother in Heaven seems to be a topic that, when discussed in some quarters, almost inevitably devolves and degrades.  Just look at the Trib article:

• "Some feminists don’t want to be handed Heavenly Mother from church leaders but would prefer to have members, mostly women, 'find her ourselves,' says Rachel Hunt Steenblik."  Huh.  It seems odd to affirmatively reject and dislike prophetic statements about a sacred and revelatory topic.  I also note that the Gender Wars continue to be imported into the Church.
• "{S}ome feel that progressive members 'are not any better at including single people or people without children in these types of conversations,' the poet says, 'and feel that they also highly privileged women who are married and have children.'"  Oi.  This is the language of disunity and division.
• "These are conversations that female members should be having, says Latter-day Saint historian and theologian Maxine Hanks, instead of waiting for the church’s male leaders to offer the last word on Heavenly Mother."  Again, this is about rejection of prophetic revelation.  And it borders of usurpation, too.
• "These days, the church’s view of Mother God has become most frequently entwined with the earthly roles for women spelled out in the faith’s family proclamation, with men as presiders and women as nurturers.  That leaves women like Kerry Spencer Pray feeling alienated.  'I’m a mother and a queer Mormon, married to a woman,' says Pray, who taught writing at BYU for 15 years. 'For me, the rhetoric about Heavenly Mother is a little bit tricky because she has a husband and children. My life doesn’t fit.'"  Again, this is supposed to be a news article.  And note how Fletcher Stack bolsters Pray's street cred by irrelevantly noting that she "taught writing at BYU for 15 years."  

6. It appears that Sis. Givens used a church meeting to espouse her personal opinion that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit.  As Warren Aston astutely noted: "There is no need to speculate or teach beyond the body of material given by the leaders of the church for the past 180 years."  But it looks like Sis. Givens may have done just that.  And she did that during a church meeting, while speaking in a representative capacity.  If so, then that was an unfortunate lapse in judgment, and I hope she avoids repeating it in the future.

7. I very much like Sis. Givens and her writings.  She seems like a wonderful person.  I also appreciate her discretion in not running to the Internet or the Tribune to foment ill will against BYU and/or the Church, to self-aggrandize, to elicit sympathy and adulation for herself at the expense of BYU and/or the Church.  I wish her the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Deidre Nicole Green is also not included in the listing of past scholars.

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

She asked to be removed in protest of Park's removal.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Quote

 

Quote

Well, to be fair, pretty much the entire Mormon history community finds Black to be an awful historian.

CFR, please.

 

Sorry, I don't have a collection of written statements by every Mormon historian out there, so the CFR is a bit ridiculous, I think.

And yet, board rules require you to - having made a factual assertion - to substantiate it with references when asked to do so.

Sis. Black is an academic, and her scholarship has been fairly extensive, so finding some references shouldn't be too hard.  Her critique of Park's book takes quite a beating in the comments section.

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

And yet, board rules require you to - having made a factual assertion - to substantiate it with references when asked to do so.

 

That's great and all, but I haven't carried around a voice recorder to document each time I've heard her being criticized (to put it mildly) by groups of Mormon historians. Sorry.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

She asked to be removed in protest of Park's removal.

CFR, please.

I am generally indifferent to internecine disputes in academia, even at BYU, but since you keep making factual assertions...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

Quote

And yet, board rules require you to - having made a factual assertion - to substantiate it with references when asked to do so.

That's great and all, but I haven't carried around a voice recorder to document each time I've heard her being criticized (to put it mildly) by groups of Mormon historians. Sorry.

From the board guidelines:

Quote

BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:
...
• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

Part of this board's vitality (such as it is) arises from it trying to set itself apart from behaviors common on other message boards, including anonymous posters making factual statements without citation to "appropriate references."  This requirement mitigates the tendency for speculation, unsubstantiated hearsay, gossip, etc. to be passed off as fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

I am generally indifferent to internecine disputes in academia, even at BYU, but since you keep making factual assertions...

She's a friend and told me. Sorry again for not recording our conversation for you.

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Part of this board's vitality (such as it is) arises from it trying to set itself apart from behaviors common on other message boards, including anonymous posters making factual statements without citation to "appropriate references."  This requirement mitigates the tendency for speculation, unsubstantiated hearsay, gossip, etc. to be passed off as fact.

 

Then just disregard all I have said, since I don't intend to record conversations I have with friends and associates.

Edited August 6, 2024 by the narrator

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Then just disregard all I have said, 

Will do.

You said:

Quote

The Interpreter folk really hated him, and after an op-ed on the Church and gay rights, some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website.

You have presented no evidence that "{t}he Interpreter folk really hated {Benjamin E. Park}," but you are publishing this statement as fact to the world anyway.  

Benjamin E. Park (and Fiona Givens) are both fairly extensively referenced on the MI website, but you are still asserting, as fact, that "some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website."

We need to own our errors and flaws, but purveying this sort of gossip and hearsay is not good for the Church. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Benjamin E. Park (and Fiona Givens) are both fairly extensively referenced on the MI website, but you are still asserting, as fact, that "some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website."

I stand by what I said, and they were removed from list of past scholars. You can play your CFR game all you want to frame these as mere gossip and rumors all you want, but that's precisely what happened--and this was told to me first-hand by persons involved.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We need to own our errors and flaws, but purveying this sort of gossip and hearsay is not good for the Church. 

I do not care at all. If removing Park and Givens from the MI list of past scholars doesn't look good for the Church, then maybe those who demanded it should have thought better.

I'm annoyed that I've wasted too much time over your silly abuse of the CFR requests, so I'm done here on this thread.

Have a good day, friend.