Talk:Mormonism and history/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 What The? 2 POV stuff 3 History religions 4 Paragraphs #7 & #8 Issues

What The?

Is it just me, or is this article just one big piece of original research?--TrustTruth 17:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point—only one reference. Have any sources we can use to rewrite the article? The Jade Knight 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed in Utah newspapers, BYU & U of U alumni material, and in some short works, beginning in the 1980's and continuing (at intervals) to the present. I am unaware of any published books or academic works focusing entirely on the subject, but suspect a couple of recent and expected LDS biographies might touch on the subject. The web will probably have some material. I do not have anything at hand, but a visit to one of Utah's university libraries should produce some material. I'll add it to my lengthy "to do" list. Best wishes. WBardwin 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The Jade Knight 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added an "unreferenced" tag to the article. The Jade Knight 07:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

one article, about one controversial biography, added as a reference. Will continue to look about. WBardwin 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the references. What's the relevance of the Mormon Alliance to this article? The Jade Knight 05:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective (and my memory), the goals and intentions of the Mormon Alliance in documenting instances of abuse of authority, which sounds straight forward, seemed to actually end up challenging the authority of church leaders. In 1993, Anderson published a chronology documenting cases of what she regarded as spiritual abuse by LDS church leaders during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. This article became grounds for her excommunication on charges of apostasy in September 1993, as one of the September Six. Although the LDS church has never had a "Papal infallibility" clause, leaders have never felt comfortable at being called into question and perceive it as disloyal, in this case, heretical. The case of Anderson, and other scholars who faced discipline at about the same time, actually led to a strong response by church authorities. They began encouraging the presentation of faith-promoting history (as partially discussed here) rather than any history, which called the actions of leaders into question or presented Church activities in a negative light. It also led to a shake up in the history departments at LDS Church headquarters and at Brigham Young University. A number of people with more liberal ideas about history and historic presentation were asked to leave their posts. Some have since had difficulty accessing church materials and publishing church related work. The "theme" of faith-promoting history was quickly picked up by local church leaders in many areas and left more liberal scholars and thinkers at a disadvantage. Fortunately, in the last 6 years or so, the pendulum has started to swing back to a more moderate approach. President Hinckley's efforts in discussing the history of the Mountain Meadows massacre might be a good example. Restrictions on access to Church archives have been eased, and more scholarly work is being done. But, I suspect, questioning LDS church authority and those in authority will always be touchy. Hopefully, I and other editors familiar with these events can present them more clearly here as time permits. Does these rambling paragraphs make any sense to you? WBardwin 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat; I still feel uncomfortable about its inclusion here (as it is not particularly concerned with Faith-promoting History), but I cannot think of a better place to provide the inter wiki links, so I suppose they should stay. Anyway, I appreciate the sourcing you've been doing for the article. The Jade Knight 08:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I tucked the wiki articles & references here as I found them, as I suspect we will have a 1) background or development section before 2) explaining the church position and quoting the church authorities and 3) talking about the pros and cons of faith-promoting history. This will be a difficult article to write in a balanced NPOV -- strong emotions and perspectives on all sides. And in a sense, I'm in the middle. I'm active in the LDS church but trained to be a neutral and objective historian. Such fun. WBardwin 10:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've a similar training to you then, though LDS History is certainly not my specialty. Anyway, it can't hurt to find sources for all this, and I appreciate your work on it. Especially some help from Dylan. The Jade Knight 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading the text, and the improvements to it, but my, albeit poor, initial research indicates that this is not a solely LDS phenomenon - although the phrase "faith-promoting history" may be. Perhaps this would be better merged with a general topic and then presented as an example of it. Then there would be fewer neutrality issues. --Trödel 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am especially not fond of the phrase since there are fewer than 100 references to it on the internet, and nearly all are on blogs and comments on LDS books.[1] When this happens my original research spidey sense starts tingling :) --Trödel 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

POV stuff

I have just done a Google search of this term that I have not heard before. I notice that critics and opponents of the Mormon Church exclusively use it. I don't think articles that are cruft like this should exist, but at least this bias should be noted and I will edit to that effect. --Blue Tie 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see how this article can be "fixed". Wow. I looked, for example at the link about the "September 6". Only one was an historian. The article should not go to the other 5 just to him, but...Was he excommunicated for his historical research or because he is gay? If because he is gay, then even that should not be here, because it has nothing to do with historical research. --Blue Tie 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a BYU trained historian, actively involved in the Church, and the phrase is common among LDS historians and non-Mormon historians working in Western History. It is used to contrast the approach to the more traditional methods in history. The concept, but not the term, has also been applied to Catholic historians over about 150 years. So, as the Internet tends to house more sensational viewpoints (one of my reservations about internet sources), perhaps the term is not so biased as it may appear to you. But certainly, we could work toward a more balanced presentation in the article. As for the September 6 -- primarily the media, as intellectuals, grouped them. Many of them have published as social scientists or theologians, rather than as historians. But several of them did have history backgrounds. I went to school with one of them, had a seminar from another. As to the reason for excommunication that is private and certainly there would be not published source unless one of the parties talked about the process during an interview. Appreciate your interest in this obscure article. WBardwin 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I got here from Fawn Brodie, but I find religious things interesting and I generally do not like attacks on religions, even those I do not agree with (not suggesting I disagree with LDS or Catholics though). I researched the term on the Internet and found it to be completely dominated by sources that do not like LDS. This is a flag to me. --Blue Tie 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this page; it simply lacks references--which I think can be supplied. Please give me a couple of days.--John Foxe 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that there is something intrinsically wrong with it -- it is a bit like writing an article titled "Bad things Catholics do" with the justification that there are many people who discuss these things under the heading "Bad things that Catholics Do". Furthermore, this sort of beautifying (or sometimes uglifying) of the historical record is certainly NOT confined to the Mormons as this article suggests. For example, Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket were made into great heroes by virtue of romanticized and even fictional histories. Washington was "the boy who could not tell a lie". Betsy Ross designed and sewed the first flag. Christopher Columbus bravely defied fears that he would fall off the edge of the earth to be the first man to discover America. The first Thanksgiving was a big party thrown by the Pilgrims for the Indians. This sort of heroic myth building (or savaging) was popular even as late as the 1960's. But, I tend to be patient. --Blue Tie 02:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll like everything that I've done here. But I'm confident that this essay can no longer be dismissed as "cruft."--John Foxe 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is still a bit crufty. Over reliance on Ostling and I note some quotes that I think are from that source that look mighty suspicious. I will list them below

Roberts predicted that if church leaders did not address the historical difficulties of church origins--which he found troubling--the problems would eventually undermine "the faith of the Youth of the Church.

It looks like a creative bit of editing. What exactly did he say about "the faith of the Youth of the Church"? Was he talking about kids? Is that really relevant?

Although Juanita Brooks was not censured by the Church for her 1950 history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, she found herself ostracized by her LDS community in southern Utah.

Did she really find herself ostracized? Did she ever say so? Anyway, not sure this is about faith promoting history but small town folk upset about muckraking in their town history. Furthermore, notice that not one single quote actually discusses, mentions or uses the term that is the subject of the article. It’s a cruft term that is hardly used, even in the quotes used to describe it. --Blue Tie 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You've made some good points. Some changes must be made. But many of your deletions illustrate the phenomenon being discussed in the article. --John Foxe 10:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is insulting. What have I done to give rise to this antagonistic approach? I do not know if you have not noticed it yet, but I believe in the standards of wikipedia. Among others NPOV is absolute. For example, while I agree that Gary Wills "savaged" Brody, I do NOT believe that this is appropriate under NPOV. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. It has to do with wikipedia standards. --Blue Tie 11:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please. Perhaps you know the off-told tale of Numa-Denis Fustel de Coulanges, who told his enraptured French audience, “It is not I to whom you are listening, it is history itself that speaks.”--John Foxe 12:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was not history or Numa-Denis who said that I was engaging in "Faith Promoting History" while editing wikipedia. It was you. Take credit where it is due.--Blue Tie 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fustel de Coulanges. So you haven't heard that quotation before. --John Foxe 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I have heard it before, but only once vaguely. It "rings a faint bell". I am guessing that it was some sort of self-deprecating humor that caused you to bring it up? --Blue Tie 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

History religions

You've misunderstood what I mean by "history religions." A "history religion" is one in which history makes a difference. There are numerous examples from Judaism before 70 AD, Christianity ("If Christ be not risen then your faith is in vain") and Mormonism. (If there were no Moroni and no golden plates then Joseph Smith's testimony is a lie). None of the other major world religions operate like this. It doesn't make any difference when, or even if, Buddha lived. Buddhism exists independently of history.--John Foxe 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand better now though I think this term "history religion" is vague. But, if I get your meaning, Hinduism is a history religion. You might not recognize it as such because you might consider it "mythology", but isn't that sort of the point? That the ancient "histories" are not verifiable or even very researchable? Depending upon which sect of Buddhism you are talking about, the history is important because it is an object lesson. Islam is definitely a history religion. --Blue Tie 13:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism has no connection with history. Myth isn't history. Ditto about Islam, which is malleable and doesn't depend on the historical record. If Mohammed never lived, never took flight in Jerusalem, it wouldn't make any difference to Islam. Being a history religion has nothing to do with verifiability or research ability. The point is that in a history religion, believers admit that if its history is false, the religion is false. --John Foxe 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have made a number of statements of personal opinion that are not sufficient for justification of entry in wikipedia. You claim Hinduism has no connection with history. Many Hindu's disagree just as many Christians (I’m not sure about Jews) feel that Genesis is literal history and the earth was made in 6 days. As far as Islam, you could not be more wrong. The history of Islam is critical. You should study the reasons for the Hajj. You should look at the sites that they venerate. These are historical sites. I really believe you do not have correct information here. --Blue Tie 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs #7 & #8 Issues

Paragraph 7 was as follows:

The most serious consequences of "faith-promoting history" occur when it downplays or avoids sensitive aspects of the Mormon story. "It is not, for example, politically correct to suggest that Mormons, while victims, were not always innocent victims, or that though holiness may be an affront to the observer, ordinary Saintly holiness was not usually the cause of Mormon persecution." As Quinn has written, "Traditional Mormon apologists discuss such 'sensitive evidence' only when this evidence is so well known that ignoring it is almost impossible."

It opens with the phrase: "The most serious consequences...". Yet, throughout the paragraph there is not one single description, indication or review of a "consequence". The word is simply stuck into the paragraph without justification. Furthermore, these unspoken consequences are considered ... by wikipedia evidently ... to be "the most serious". This is contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:RS. Specifically it is contrary to the instruction: "do not assert opinions". The next sentence again, "asserts an opinion". Although it is in quotes and the source is in footnotes, I do not believe that meets the guidelines of wikipedia. I would like to change it to "So and so says: ________" but I do not have the source and the citation does not give sufficient detail to do it confidently. Paragraph 8 was as follows:

The recent response of Church leaders to the writing of scholarly history by LDS members has been mixed. Grant H. Palmer, who wrote the openly critical An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, was disfellowshipped in 2004. On the other hand, the biography of respected historian Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling was much more even-handed, and it achieved a greater level of acceptance within the Church--even being sold in the BYU campus store, for instance. In Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman rarely attempts to conceal the more controversial aspects of Joseph Smith's character, but he does try to ameliorate their impact on believing readers while still tipping his hat to historical objectivity. In his essay "The Balancing Act: A Mormon historian reflects on his biography of Joseph Smith," Bushman noted that one reviewer had written of his "walking a high wire between the demands of church conformity and the necessary openness of scholarly investigation." Bushman argued that one did not have to be objective to write history.

Again, assertions of opinion in this paragraph. Palmer's work is "openly critical" ... in wikipedia's OPINION. Yet wikipedia is not supposed to have opinions. Who else says it is openly critical? Palmer? The Mormons? Quote them saying so. In the opinion of wikipedia (which is not supposed to have opinions), Richard bushman is "respected". The book he wrote was "more" even handed, maybe so. Who else said so besides wikipedia? Apparently "it achieved a greater level of acceptance within the Church--even being sold in the BYU campus store". Was the other book not sold in the BYU campus bookstore? (I did not say, "is" because its possible it was never popular.... I have not looked it up). When we say it achieved a greater level of acceptance, is this wikipedia's opinion or is it a fact? It says Bushman "rarely" attempts to conceal. But does he sometimes attempt to conceal? This is a living person. Care must be taken not to slander or insinuate things. What he is attempting to conceal are "more controversial" aspects of Joseph Smith's "character". Should that be "character" or should it be "history"? What is it that he actually only attempts to conceal on rare instances? If it is "character" how does he conceal that? What constitutes the authority that declares some things "more controversial" and other things "less controversial"? Also, in the opinion of wikipedia he 'tips the hat" to historical objectivity. Does he really? Doesn't the quote below actually say that there is no such thing as objective history? Sounds like he does not tip the hat there. --Blue Tie 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess and should have been deleted or merged into Controversies and the LDS church. Agree with the comments below - many statements only Mormons would understand, and many loaded words are used. I've added fact checks throughout the article. Palmer's book was also sold at BYU and Deseret Book until about two years ago - so that is a lame statement and completely irrelevant, unless pushing a POV. -Visorstuff 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)