Talk:Mormonism and history/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Merge with Mormon apologetics?

Should this article be merged with Mormon apologetics? The two articles seem to be germane to one another, and I'm not sure that faith-promoting history is the most NPOV way to describe the issue. Who says, for example, that this type of history is in fact "faith promoting"? COGDEN 10:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this merge - as I have been unsure how to proceed on this article. --Trödel 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

One other possibility I was thinking about is to rename this article to something like Mormon hagiography. The reason I suggest this is because, while I think this article and the Mormon apologetics article could be merged, there are some aspects of "faith-promoting history" that aren't technically apologetics. For example, while most "faith-promoting history" published by FARMS or in journals like BYU Studies is apologetics, the type of "faith-promoting history" you find in church handbooks is better-described as hagiography, since the church handbooks aren't usually trying to defend or explain the lives of church leaders, they are just trying to sing their praises. I haven't decided which option I prefer: apologetics or hagiography. COGDEN 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Mormonism and History" as a new title? This larger article could cover Mormon interest in frontier diaries, the simultaneous creation of the church and the Church Historian, early LDS purchase of historic sites like Carthage jail, the handcart recreations, Mormon documentaries and glossy picture books, and the outdoor pageants as recruiting tools. It would also cover Mormon suspicion of academic history, the attempt to limit knowledge of Mormon history among the faithful, the founding of Mormon historical periodicals, a tip of the hat to Mark Hofmann, Camelot under Leonard J. Arrington, the "New Mormon History,” as well as everything else that's already in the article. As a religion, Mormonism has a unique relationship with history that deserves a separate article. --John Foxe 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about our use of the X (Mormonism), X (Latter Day Saints) Mormonism and X, etc naming convention when the issue is primarily or (nearly entirely) one involving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like I think this one is. When we do so, it complicates matters unnecessarily, as some of the smaller denominations do not have a theology (or, in some cases, there are claims of a theology but that theology is not verifiable from reliable sources). This is one of the main problems with the articles on Mormonism - it is very confusing to someone who doesn't know or want to learn about all the different denominations and their relationships. --Trödel 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here. Why are "Mormon apologetics" and "Mormon hagiography" acceptable terms but "Mormonism and History" is not? --John Foxe 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to give that impression - I think the problem needs to be addressed for articles named that way too; however, they have been named that way for some time - so I feel overwhelmed in addressing them. Mormon apologetics, at least on the surface, can include the apologetics of other denominations, like Church of Christ and FLDS, which have verifiable apologetic writing. If you mean to include a broader subject than the claim of "faith promoting" history, then I would be equally overwhelmed ;) --Trödel 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's the direction we want to take the article, then maybe we should call it Historiography of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to cover the history of Mormon history in the LDS Church, and then Historiography of the Latter Day Saint movement to cover the history of Mormon history during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. Both articles could be very substantial. COGDEN 00:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Historiography" is the principles, methodology, or history of writing history. An excellent historiography of Mormonism is Walker, Whittaker, and Allen, Mormon History (2001). Mormonism's relationship to history is something other. (And if those guys can call Mormonism "Mormonism," why can't we?) --John Foxe 11:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The historical historiography aspect is what I was getting at: the history of the framing of Mormon history. That would certainly include this article, as one point in that historiography. I would see it including all of the following:

• early historical revisionism by Joseph Smith
• Hurlbut and Howe in the 1830s
• hagiography of Joseph and Hyrum
• hagiography of later church leaders
• the "Utah" edition of Lucy Mack Smith's history
• B.H. Roberts
• Fawn Brodie
• New Mormon history
• Historical Packerism
• Hoffman forgeries
• apologetic histories
• New Apologetic history

I'm not sure what you mean by Mormonism's "relationship" with history, if you don't mean Mormon historiography. COGDEN 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those things but also those I mentioned above, "interest in frontier diaries, the simultaneous creation of the church and the Church Historian, early LDS purchase of historic sites like Carthage jail, the handcart recreations, Mormon documentaries and glossy picture books, and the outdoor pageants as recruiting tools"--combined with Mormon need to control the acceptable past because the faith is so intimately tied to history. As I implied in the article, there's really nothing like the Mormon relationship to history in any other religion. I think it's unique.--John Foxe 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The CJC version of early Mormon history is much more realistic than any current Catholic history on the early fathers. I think there is plenty to compare it to - and most not favorably. --Trödel 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That only points up the difference in the way the Catholic Church relates to history. For instance, the church doesn't sponsor reenactments of the Council of Nicaea, and the Immaculate Conception could be declared dogma more than 1850 years after Mary's birth with not even a nod toward historicity. I'm not referring to accuracy, realism, or reliability but rather Mormonism's intimate love-hate relationship with history. As I said above, I think it's unique--nothing like it anywhere in the religious world. --John Foxe 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean - agree - Histiography would be a good place to cover this. I would go with COGDEN's proposal of Historiography of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --Trödel 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Our love-hate relationship probably has something to do with family history as well. So many of us come from a long line of members, and often have access to journals and materials from the early Church and pioneer periods. So, perhaps, we see ourselves reflected in any church history presentation. I would vote "Yes" for a merge into a historiography article. This sounds like the beginning of a great article! I would be happy to help, if time permits if and when the real world settles down for me. Best to all. WBardwin 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinions, gentlemen, but I'm still not thrilled about the proposed title. It sounds stuffy, and it's too exclusive. Ask folks in your ward or workplace what "Historiography of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" means. Most will be clueless. The most knowledgeable will understand it as a kind of a summary of Walker, Whittaker, and Allen, Mormon History. Nothing wrong with that (though it's not what I had in mind), but why not at least call it "Mormon Historiography" and cover all the groups.--John Foxe 15:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about nobody knowing what the word historiography means, but there is an aspect of what we're talking about for which I can't think of a better word. I have no problem with calling it Mormon historiography it it's about "Brighamite" historians. Just a thought, but what about Latter Day Saint historiography? Of course, I know next to nothing about the work of Community of Christ historians, so I don't know what non-"Brighamite" elements of a broader article might include. What we might want to do is separate the material into three different articles:

• Mormon apologetics -- This would cover apologetics, including a section on the history of apologetics, with a link to Mormon historiography.
• Mormon historiography -- This would cover the detailed history of Mormon historical thinking, and include a section on apologetics as applied to history, with a link to Mormon apologetics.
• Mormonism and history -- This would cover all intersections between Mormonism and history, as Trödel suggested, with a major summary section linking to the main article Mormon historiography, but also discussions of topics like Mormon family history, Mormon historic sites, handcart recreations, pageants, etc.—history-related things that aren't included in the Mormon historiography article because they haven't been concerned primarily with compiling, analyzing, or criticizing history—just possessing it, selling it, keeping it out of the "wrong hands", recreating it, using it as a tool for political or religious power, or whatever other strange postmodern things we Mormons do to our history. I think this would include the Hoffman forgeries, too, but an argument could be made that this belongs in the historiography article. COGDEN 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the three article ideas - we open a can of worms if we get into what historical "revisions" reasons why, if the church is "open" with its archives, etc. I like your outline above starting with early historical revisionism by Smith and ending with New Apologetic history (And believe we should add in a "Nibley-ism history" somewhere. But think it belongs within the Mormon Apologetics article as a sub-section. OR as a sub-section of Mormon History. OR as a part of a new article titled of Mormon studies. -Visorstuff 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of structure

As I put my hand to the task of improving this article, I noticed that it has very poorly defined structure. I would appreciate any contributions, which addressed this shortcoming. I notice there have been several suggestions made on this page, but none have been incorporated as yet. ErinHowarth 12:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk page

After reading the re-structured article, I realized that the following text has nothing to do with the topic "Faith Promoting History". Instead these are discussions of historians that do NOT engage in "Faith Promoting History". It's like giving a list of popes when discussing atheists. Makes no sense. --Blue Tie 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Juanita Brooks and Fawn Brodie

Fawn Brodie wrote a biography of Joseph Smith in 1945 entitled, No Man Knows My History which portrayed the Mormon founder as a gifted fraud. As a result, she was excommunicated. Although her work was embraced by non-Mormons it also received the attention of Church leadership.

Juanita Brooks published a history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1950. Instead of being excommunicated she said "around here, my crime is either overlooked or ignored". It might be overstating the situation to say that Brooks "received an ecclesiastical blacklisting." "Unlike Brodie, Brooks continued to affirm her faith in public and, perhaps for that reason, she managed to retain her membership in the church."

Leonard J. Arrington

From 1972 to 1982 the Church maintained a relatively open door policy to its historical records and installed Leonard J. Arrington, as Church Historian. He was the first academically trained scholar to hold that post.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Many historical projects were started and completed at this time. A new, 16-volume history of the Church was also planned.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  However, after a number of years, the department came under suspicions for improperly released information and suspicions of disloyalty.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Arrington, along with his hired staff were gradually transferred to various other departments or organizations. The 16-volume history was never completed. Access to many materials in the church archives—including some that had earlier been made available to non-LDS scholars—was thereafter restricted or denied..

D. Michael Quinn

D. Michael Quinn is an accomplished historian who first became controversial in 1981 when he gave a speech answering a speech by Elder Boyd K. Packer. Elder Packer had addressed Church Educational System personnel at BYU and included several statements about how church history should be taught. Quinn took issue with much of what Elder Packer said as a matter of professional integrity. In 1985, Quinn wrote an article entitled "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904." It was published by Sunstone in the spring issue. Quinn's stake president confided in him that three apostles, including Elder Packer, contacted him and ordered him to confiscate Quinn's temple recommend for "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." In 1986, he wrote Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, which described the world in which Joseph Smith lived to be a world full of folk magic, treasure digging and occultist traditions including astrology, divining rods, the study of skull contours to understand personality traits and the wearing of talismans. In response, his dean questioned him in an interview about his future at BYU. Quinn took the hint and resigned in 1988. In 1992, Quinn contributed an essay entitled Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood since 1844 which "argued that the temple endowment conferred priesthood authority, though not priesthood office, on women and that male ecclesiastical officers could not constrain women's exercise of spiritual gifts as long as women did not trespass on male administrative assignments." In response, Quinn's stake president made several attempts to meet with him, but Quinn always refused. Quinn was excommunicated 26 September, 1993. Officially, the reason for Quinn's excommunication was "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church" referring to his refusal meet with his stake president. (See also: September Six.)

Grant Palmer

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.

W.E. Riter question

In 1921, W.E. Riter, a young member of the Church, wrote to apostle James E. Talmage asking questions about the historical accuracy and authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Elder Talmage forwarded the letter to B.H. Roberts, church historian. Roberts researched the questions and wrote to the Twelve:

I am most thoroughly convinced of the necessity of all the brethren herein addressed becoming familiar with these Book of Mormon problems, and finding the answer for them, as it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now as also in the future, as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world.

Notes

I appriciate that my contributions were moved here instead of deleted outright. I believ they will need to be worked by in somehow. Although they are not examples of historians being censured for failing to write faith-promoting history; therefore they serve to illustrated the great importance which the Brethern place on this sort of thing. ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Still Problems with this article

1. This article looks like cruft to me. (I have said this before, but it was objected to)

I know that you have said this before, but I still don't know what it means. ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Do we have any articles that are "Faith Promoting History (Roman Catholic)"? Or "Faith Promoting History (Bahai)"? And many more? This seems to be too specific to one religion when it really extends across all religions and faiths.

I believe that this issue affects others faiths in other ways. For example, evangelical Christians try to re-write parts of pre-history in order to reconcile the creation sotry found in Genesis. I think it would be approprate to include links to such pages, but a single page could not adequately discuss all the issues faced by all faiths, and there are precious few contributors who would know enough about all the faiths to create a balanced article.ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3. After looking and looking at it, that first quote does not appear to be about "History". It may not be appropriate. I am trying to find the original context. It doesn't appear in original context on the net and I may have to go to the library on this one.

Which quote is the "first quote." ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

4. If you are going to do something about LDS Faith promoting history, can't we give any examples? Or is this an insinuation without substance? --Blue Tie 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A semi-new start

I agree with Blue Tie that the title "Faith-Promoting History" was a handicap from the beginning. Let us move on with this more inclusive title. As Cogden suggested above, I anticipate that this page will "cover all intersections between Mormonism and history, as Trödel suggested, with a major summary section linking to the main article Mormon historiography, but also discussions of topics like Mormon family history, Mormon historic sites, handcart recreations, pageants, etc.—history-related things that aren't included in the Mormon historiography article because they haven't been concerned primarily with compiling, analyzing, or criticizing history—just possessing it, selling it, keeping it out of the "wrong hands", recreating it, using it as a tool for political or religious power, or whatever other strange postmodern things we Mormons do to our history. I think this would include the Hoffman forgeries, too, but an argument could be made that this belongs in the historiography article. COGDEN 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)" --John Foxe 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I changed some of what John Foxe added, I believe his idea is an ingenious improvement and that the title is more encyclopedic. And if this is an agreed upon way to go, I think the removed sections above should go back in, though I have not looked again to see if they should be re-edited. But, though I think this is better, here are two or three things that I have some concerns about:

1. What about Catholics and History? Or Baptists and History (I am thinking of Landmarkist theories)? Do these articles exist? If not, should they? If there are no such articles that is not to say that there should not be any, but if there aren't it suggests that this is a whole area overlooked by wikipedia or it is an invalid topic.

It is a very interesting question, but not one that needs to be answered in this article. I think we should add links if we find any, but we can write this article without them. ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2. To me, this is a little bit like the article about the Historical Jesus (I do not recall its exact name). It seems to me to be an opportunity to attack a belief more than anything else and I generally do not think that is a good use of wikipedia space. I would not want it to devolve that way.

There is a valid debate over whether or not Jesus actually lived or if he was a literary device used by Peter to expalin a new theology. Likewise the debate regarding the Book of Mormon. Is it an authentic ancient record or a invention of Joseph Smith? I don't know how we can write this page without discussing this topic. Presently, the historical evidence regarding the Book of mormon is just as inconclusive: theres nothing to suggest that it is true and nothing concret to refute it completly. ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Is this "Mormonism and History" or "Mormonism and Historians"? I think it is properly named the former, but I believe there has already been a tendency to highlight personalities rather than the subject of history from the Mormon perspective. I would not like to see it devolve in that manner.

4. Finally I think it would be easy for the article to also devolve into "History of the Mormons" and if necessary that should be an article, but I don't think it belongs here. Maybe as "See also" though. --Blue Tie 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I also got a database of Mormon Resources. Not sure how good. I still can't quite find some things but I can do a better job of quoting some sources. --Blue Tie 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Historicity

The reasons the phrase ", and much of what has survived tends to support the biblical record." was removed is as follows:

1. It is disputed. Although many people who believe the Bible to be true accept the statement as valid, there are many who believe it to be true who are ancient historians, archaeologists, geologists and cosmologists and recognize that many things do not agree with the Biblical Account. There are also many people who are atheist, agnostic or in other beliefs who do not believe that science supports it at all. Jews frequently criticize the Gospels as being utterly ridiculous by historical standards. And on and on and on... It is a disputed statement and cannot be expressed as a "fact" but only an opinion held by of some of the interpreters of the record.

2. By expressing it in that manner, it is establishing a POV of saying "Well the Bible is so great, but what the Mormons believe, on the other hand is baloney". One might as well put a phrase in the opening paragraph of Hinduism saying "Hindus believe things that are silly compared with the Christian Bible". Ok, its not quite that bad, but it is in the same vein. --Blue Tie 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring only to incontrovertible things like geographical locations, general historical outlines, and such. No matter whether you're a Bible believer or no, there is a Jerusalem and a Jericho where one can do archaeology. There were Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, and they're covered in every secular History of Civ book. Book of Mormon places, on the other hand, are simply matters of faith. There are no BoM places to do archaeology; none of its great kingdoms and battles are covered in any secular History of Civ book. --John Foxe 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are entirely right, but even if you were, that is a different matter than the subject of this article. However, there are other articles that discuss this in more and better detail. What is more, even the "General Outlines" do not support the entire Bible according to some folks. As I said, it is contested. --Blue Tie 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The debate regarding the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon is very differnt from the debate regarding how historians should portray historical figures such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Therefore I take exception withthe opening sentence as it is currently written.

Unlike other 19th-century religious movements such as Bahai, Shakerism, and Christian Science, Mormonism is a religion predicated on both the historicity of a prophet's testimony and a sacred book that describes a detailed pre-Columbian history of North America. Like traditional Christianity Mormonism is likewise a history religion and few primary sources survive from two or three millennia ago, and the general outlines, at least, of biblical and Mormon history can be documented through both archaeology and historical records

As I have already mentioned here, I think the references to ther religions are misleading and should be avoided. Let's stick to what we know and what we are talking about. We don't need to compare Mormonism to other faiths on this topic.

I'm convinced that the Mormon religion is unique in its relationship to history.--John Foxe 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A restructuring of the article?

I've been thinking about another restructure of the article -- in light of confusion evidenced by the recent "merge" effort. What we are really debating out here is not "Faith Promoting History" of "Mormonism and history" but the difference between faith and intellectual understanding. L.Arrington gave a lecture on this dicotomy in the early LDS movement. Using his ideas, I think we could create a different pattern for the article, perhaps including some of the "original" material below. Also note the following perspective on the History of Religion: The history of religions is not concerned with theological claims apart from their historical significance. Some topics of this discipline are the historicity of religious figures, events, and the evolution of doctrinal matters. Opinions? Will draft an outline and/or create an introduction asap. WBardwin (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I apologize for moving your post. I realize that's not usually done, but I thought it would make discussion easier.

Although I'm not opposed to what you've proposed, my own notion for the article is less philosophical, more along the lines of the chapter "Faithful History" in the Ostlings' book. In other words the article should cover the intense interest Mormonism has always had in history: a church historian from the foundation, the Church use of historic sites, reenactments and films, the emphasis on church history in the seminaries and institutes—to be followed by D. Michael Quinn, the Tanners, Mark Hofmann, and Arrington's Camelot and its denouement.--John Foxe (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't get this article. I tried doing a summarization of what I thought was the definition, and objective of this article, but it was reverted - and I wonder if I am missing the point. Can anyone give me a 1 to 2 sentence definition of what we are actually describing here? When I read it, I feel hopelessly mired in disorganized references as to how the LDS church only teaches faith promoting history. Perhaps someone can look at my recent edit and tell me what was wrong with it? See my original edit below:

According to Mormon leaders, Mormonism is predicated on the alleged historical reality of the First Vision of Joseph Smith, and the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which describes a detailed pre-Columbian history of North America. Due to this stance by many churches in the Latter Day Saint movement, critics not that only faith-promoting history has been published and taught to many Mormons. Further, critics of Mormonism note historical inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, and suspect details of Joseph Smith's past, as evidences that cast doubt upon the truthfulness of the message of Mormonism.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I think our subject is:

Mormons emphasize history in a unique way, a way in which other religions do not. "For Mormonism more than other religions, history evolves as part of the church's canon." (Ostling, 247) The Book of Mormon and the D&C are largely history—unlike the Bible, the Koran, or the scriptures of any other major religion. Mormon seminary and institute students take required church history classes while Protestant fundamentalists and Jewish synagogue students of the same age do not.

--John Foxe (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

While you are certainly right, John, I believe LDS emphasis on history goes even farther. In the very early years, Joseph Smith envisioned and taught that the LDS movement was a part of the vast pattern of human history, a continuation of God's long interaction with men. Ancient biblical history and New Testament history was seen as a "type" of the emerging traditions and practices of the Church. In the earliest years of the Church, there was great excitement over the intellectual events of the day. New discoveries, new theories and new ideas were wonderful in light of the restored mission of the Church. People were encouraged to learn and study in all areas, and the history of the emerging Church was seen as part of a larger pattern. As the church's experiences in the world became darker, and practical considerations became more important (i.e. western colonization), new ideas and interaction with current human history were downplayed. However, when Mormonism became more mainstream in the 20th century, church history came to be ever more important in defining the Church and distinguishing it from other evangelical movements. Then -- if I can postulate - the Church was faced with a history based challenge they did not know how to address. Mark Hoffman's forgeries seemingly fit into the historic pattern but made little real sense in light of the Church's image of itself and it's history. The reaction by Church authorities was extreme, even after Hoffman's crimes were revealed. The idea of "faith-based history" re-emerged from some earlier teachings and "intellectuals revising" church history were targeted. Competent LDS historians were stunned, as were some more "liberal" GA's. I believe that the pendulum has now swung back more than a little and that the church will be more open to inquiry and publication in the immediate future. Certainly, access to Church archives and other materials has relaxed. ..........well, that was long winded. Hope this is helpful. WBardwin (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism and historiography or Mormonism and the study of history -- possible titles? From the Historiography article - Approaches to history: The question of how a historian approaches historical events is one of the most important questions within historiography. It is commonly recognised by historians that, in themselves, individual historical facts are not particularly meaningful. Such facts will only become useful when assembled with other historical evidence, and the process of assembling this evidence is understood as a particular historiographical approach. Historiography was always a difficult subject for me, personally, but it comes close to what we are talking about. The Wikipedia article has some standard views and structures. Ideas? Sorry, getting passionate about the "new" article, and rambling........WBardwin (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WBardwin - if I am capturing the spirit of this article correctly, it should be titled Mormonism and historiagraphy, or Mormon historiography or something like that. I am also trying to get a sense of past discussion on this topic (see the "Merge with apologetics" discussion above....--Descartes1979 (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle to renaming the article once again except that the average reader will not have a clue what historiography means. Even an informed reader will have to be told what we mean by the term. As I said above, fourteen months ago, an excellent historiography of Mormonism is Walker, Whittaker, and Allen, Mormon History (2001). And they call their subject "history." Nevertheless, I agree with most of what WBardwin has written in his "passionate" paragraph above. I bow to your pleasure in the renaming.--John Foxe (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though my image of the article is really Mormon historiography -- the Mormon "world view" on history -- I agree with John that our average user would not understand. I think we can stick with Mormonism and history as long as we define the article well in the lead paragraph and tie it to the study of historiography. I have added a couple of sources (I recently read) to the article and will look for Walker, Whittaker, and Allen's Mormon History. In spite of my "passion" above, do you agree we should present a time based view of the topic, starting with JSmith's viewpoint? Or should we present the more modern issue, and have a history section? WBardwin (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As you've said, I believe that we should have a solid lede that well introduces the subject of Mormon interaction with history--Weltanschauung for sure, but also how history has proven to be a double-edged sword for the LDS church. (Even I'm surprised to see, a day after his death, an article about GBH and history in the Salt Lake Tribune.) And I certainly agree that the article should be time-based, beginning with Joseph Smith and proceeding in roughly chronological order.--John Foxe (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This all seems a bit fuzzy to me. As I review the history of the article, it started out as an article that distinguished historical facts from "faith-promoting" history. The premise was that the LDS church had too much of the latter and not enough of the former. Foxe has indicated that the LDS church uses history uniquely different from all other churches. This is where I get confused...having studied religions for many years I have yet to find one religion that does not use faith-promoting stories. I just returned from Rome and while I was there I was surprised to find that one of the guides I worked with at the St. Peter's was very clear that there is no historical facts that support the story of Peter's death in Rome; that it was Tradition only. Catholicism and Orthodoxy if rife with stories of pure faith. So, I still don't have the objective for this article; at the end of the day what is the reader to have understood from it? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm, as I recall, the article started out as a modestly negative report on the reaction of Church leaders to historic challenges by a small group of Mormon intellectuals, who were exploring a new historical dynamic. Some pushed the envelope too far for GA comfort, and the reaction (interestingly, tied to the JSmith period) was church discipline for heresy and criticising church leadership. This "revisionist" history issue emerged in the same basic time as the Hoffman issue. In my opinion, and the observations of several other BYU alumni, historians who were not disciplined felt threatened as well and emotions ran pretty high.

However, the editors of the article quickly realized that focusing on this one incident in the Church's relationship with history placed the issue out of context. They began to look for other historians, like Fawn Brodie who had also challenged the church's view of history. My proposal would strive to point out that "faith-based history" is a way of looking at the world, a viewpoint that is individual to all faiths and cultures. Mormon's have always had some "faith-based" perspectives and some "intellectual" perspectives about history. The article would look at the way Mormons themselves view the LDS movement within history, how mainstream Mormon historians strive to balance the viewpoints (i.e. Arrington, Bushman), and would address how "outside" scholars view and report on Mormons (WStegner, maybe). As John points out, Mormons have on occasion had "history" strike a unexpected blow. But that problem is not unique to Mormons, as other religious movements face similar challenges. We could talk about that challenge here as well. WBardwin (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with StormRider, it is quite fuzzy - there is a phrase at the beginning of this article that always struck me as strange: "Although traditional Christianity is likewise a history religion...". Maybe I am new to the realm of historiography and religion, but aren't all religions based in what they think is history? For example, although there are no historical facts that support Peter's death in Rome, I would wager there are millions of Catholics that believe it actually happened, even if they can't prove it. If I follow this line of thought, a lot of things in this article start to sound like original research. I do think there is some good content here, but unless there is a really solid definition of where we are going, this article will always have problems.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As for original research, I have an article by Leonard Arrington, one by Jan Shipps, and a book by Catholic historiographer Gary Topping as quite recent sources. Bushman's recent Joseph Smith biography offers some insight. John has offered another source. Even the 2008 Church manual on the teachings of Joseph Smith talks a little about Smith's view of history. Brigham Young has a few known quotes as well. So I don't think we would go too far wrong if we stuck to the sources. Maintaining a balanced pov would be the hardest part, as the very idea of "faith-based" history may rub more secular scholars the wrong way. But we are still discussing, of course. Opinions? WBardwin (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Most religions are not history based. To the practicing Buddhist, it makes little difference how, or even whether, Gautama Sidhartha lived and died. Judaism and Christianity are history based—and to a lesser degree Islam—but most world religions are not. For instance, Hinduism and Confucianism have plenty of "faith-promoting" stories, but they're not "historical" in the sense that their faith-promoting qualities rest on whether or not they actually happened. Traditional Christianity absolutely rests on history ("If Christ be not raised, ye are yet in your sins"), but unlike Mormonism its history is so far in the past that attacks on its historicity are often reduced to DaVinci Code level. Mormonism is different because it's so recent and because so much non-faith-promoting information has survived. GBH's grandfather was a member of the Church when Joseph Smith was assassinated.--John Foxe (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm no Buddhist, but that is news to me. You are saying that Buddhists acknowledge that Siddhartha Gautama may not have been a historical figure? That seems absurd. I would wager that if you talked to a Buddhist that he would argue vehemently that Siddhartha Gautama was an actual person that lived. Maybe he couldn't prove it, but he would believe that his religion is based on historical facts as far as he knew them - but again, like I said, I am not a Buddhist, and maybe I just don't know. I would be more persuaded if you had some references that speak to that effect - showing that religions other than Christianity and Mormonism are not "history religions". My study of world religions is limited to a few classes in college, and some random books here and there, so again, my knowledge is meager - but the whole idea here seems to be a thesis that was derived specifically to criticize Mormonism. Every single religion that I know of has garnered criticism because its opponents dispute the historicity of its genesis, or provenance of doctrinal claims. All religions have faith promoting stories, and there are even some in Mormonism that Mormons would recognize maybe are not actually historical (half of the stories in Especially for Mormons are a perfect example). I think that older religions largely shed this criticism because as you said, their history is hard to prove or disprove because it happened so long ago. Mormonism and newer religions are not as impregnable to such criticism. I guess what I am saying, is this: I think "history religion" is a misnomer, and I suspect that the whole concept is part of the research of a couple of select authors that are critical of Mormonism specifically. Now let me clarify - I am no Mormon apologist, and I think that there is some good content here regarding Mormonism's treatment of history. And of course, once again - a disclaimer - I am a little unfamiliar with the subject, so I might be just talking out of my butt. So consider this a challenge to convince me of what you are saying, I would love to see some quotes and references that support your arguments. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know the objective for the article. What is the reader supposed to understand when having read the article? Are we trying to prove that there have been times where the LDS church has been perceived as detrimental to intellectual research? Or is it that the LDS church attempts to limit history to faith-based stories? The second one I reject as silliness because it is a criticism against all religion; do have your research that shows the LDS church is excessively bad at it? Please just tell me what this article is supposed to describe and why it is important. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For Descartes1979:

"Jewish theology is sacred history par excellence, but in this it is not unique....Most obviously this is true of Christianity, which advances an alternative sacred history [which] makes the crucial addition of the Incarnation of God in Jesus, an historical figure of first-century Palestine....The idea of 'sacred history' has its origins in these two religions, and their prominence in Western culture has made its conceptions highly influential in the subsequent development of historical and cultural self-understanding...." Gordon Graham, The Shape of the Past: A Philosophical Approach to History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3-4.

"History was part and parcel of the religion of Israel....A 'history religion' such as that of the Jews must see in the historical process some purposeful direction and final goal." Paul Conkin and Roland N. Stromberg, Heritage and Challenge: The History and Theory of History (Arlington Heights, IL: Forum, 1989), 5-6.

"The search for histories of early India by modern scholars began in the eighteenth century. European scholars, specifically seeking histories, found it difficult to locate such texts from the Sanskrit tradition. Indian culture, and particularly the Sanskrit articulation of Indian culture, came to be defined, therefore, as ahistorical." A Global Encyclopedia of Historical Writing (Garland, 1998), I, 455.

For Storm Rider:

"Mormons remember, and they remember in detail. The remembrances bind them as a people....There is a very real sense in which the church's history is its theology....And just as creedal churches have official statements of faith, the Mormon Church tends to have official versions of sacred history....For Mormonism more than other religions, history evolves as part of the church's canon....The church has always tried to retain a proprietary hold over the telling of its own history." Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 239, 245, 247, 250.

--John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting quotes - thx for the posts John --Descartes1979 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So then the objective of this article is what? I still am not hearing the purpose and what its value will be. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If John Foxe's premise, "Mormons emphasize history in a unique way, a way in which other religions do not" is the basis or foundation for this article and its existence, that idea should be verifiable from some objective source. I do not see it likely that will happen and right now, this article is sort of a WP:COATRACK or WP:SOAPBOX article. I notice the list of things that are said to make mormons special :"a church historian from the foundation, the Church use of historic sites, reenactments and films, the emphasis on church history in the seminaries and institutes". As though other religions do not build shrines on historical places -- so that they actually threaten the peace of the world. Or as though other religions do not have histories right from the start. Or as though other Churches do not use films or plays or other media. Or that they ignore theological history in their seminaries. Or that they do not sponsor huge re-enactments from history. To me the premise is nonsensical. And if the article is supposed to be a re-hashing of the History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, isn't there already an article about that? I mean.. the one I just linked to? And the idea that because Mormonism is relatively new... it is somehow a more legitimate target for historical revisionism or criticism is simply not true -- and certainly not deserving of an article. That would be a pov article anyway -- much like an article about Hinduism and why its ridiculous because it has multi-armed Elephant Gods. Of course the article would be NPOV titled Hindu Dieties and Biological Science and chock full of reliable sources declaring that elephants with many trunks and arms would likely die and have no special powers. But maybe, if the article is about some way that the Mormons view history differently from other people, maybe there is something that could be written. But do they? I have never heard of such a thing. If Mormons have some unique concept of history then perhaps that could be covered. Or maybe they view themselves as holding some special place in the history of the world. But that is starting to sound a bit crufty now that I think about it.--Blue Tie (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've provided quotations from the Ostlings, and the Ostlings are experts. I base my premise that Mormons approach history in a unique way on those quotations. Unless experts who disagree with their views are cited, they remain authoritative.--John Foxe (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Are you saying that one source.. basically one opinion source ... is the whole basis for this article? That seems awfully like WP:COATRACK. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more, but the Ostlings will do for now. Provide expert evidence that disputes the Ostlings or their expertise remains unchallenged.--John Foxe (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back and re-read your quotes John Foxe, and I am starting to agree with BlueTie - and coming full circle, I think this article should be merged with History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as I originally proposed. The way I see it, what we are really dealing with here is a criticism of the official history advocated by the LDS church. There should be a good sized section in the main History of the Church article that talks about these criticisms. The way I understand it, the histories of many religions may be considered "ahistorical", but that doesn't mean their adherents don't believe in what they think are historical facts, it just means that there are no verifiable historical facts. This whole idea that there are some religions that are "history religions" and some that aren't still seems like a hypothesis that is being advocated by a few authors recently. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(newindent) The Ostling's are a reputable source for some things, but a masters degree in relgion and being a journalist for Time hardly makes their position "the truth"; it remains opinion. What has not been stated or provided is the objective of the article. How does position of the LDS differ from Christianity believing in the Garden of Eden and the entire creation story, Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, and Moses and the exit from Eygpt. Is there a fundamental difference between the two; does Christianity not want to take a propriatary position in telling its story? Either the objective is not clear to those of you are presenting it or it is not easy described to the rest of us. I hope that something more can be provided; just answer the simple questions I asked above because as it has been stated I don't think this article has any value.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far StormRider. Remember, according to official Wikipedia policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think this article does have value, we just need to figure out where and how to present this information most appropriately. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you guys kind of jumped off the deep end in my brief absence!! Strikes and parries already and we haven't even put up a definition. Everyone put aside the definsiveness, if you would. Please read the historiography article for a fair basic definition. I propose that we place Mormonism and history in the same context as Christianity in history. John Foxe is correct, in that our faith's recent emergence makes debates on faith based approaches to history more immediate and more contentious. In terms of content for the article, please review the following section from "historiography". If we place "Mormon" in applicable places, these are the kind of questions we would be seeking to ask and answer as we evaluate sources and develop our presentation. I've highlighted those which are often particularly applicable in Mormon history:

Some of the common questions of historiography are:

1. Reliability of the sources used, in terms of authorship, credibility of the author, and the authenticity or corruption of the text.
2. Historiographical tradition or framework. Every historian uses one (or more) historiographical traditions, some of which are Marxist, or Annales School, ("total history"), political history, etc.
3. Moral issues, guilt assignment, and praise assignment
4. Revisionism versus orthodox interpretations

Issues engaged by critical historiography includes topics such as:

• What constitutes an historical "event"?
• In what modes does a historian write and produce statements of "truth" and "fact"?
• How does the medium (novel, textbook, film, theatre, comic) through which historical information is conveyed influence its meaning?
• What inherent epistemological problems does archive-based history possess?
• How do historians establish their own objectivity or come to terms with their own subjectivity?
• What is the relationship between historical theory and historical practice?
• What is the "goal" of history?

New WBardwin Outline

As far as a basic outline, my initial ideas include:

• define Mormonism and history - i.e. Mormonism is a history based faith, as is Christianity and Judaism, believing int a God-directed pattern of events which leads to the ultimate culmination of human history.
• define Mormonism' place in a Christian faith based history, by

defining points of Mormon doctrine, practice and culture that support a unique "latter-day" view of history, including but not limited to the Plan of Salvation, Geneology and family history, Mormon pioneer history, temple work, church history/D&C, history within the Book of Mormon, church history as a regular subject in doctrinal discussions and teachings, etc......

• a "history" section, beginning with the teachings of Joseph Smith on history, and followed by the attitudes and perspectives of subsequent generations
• a "historian" section, pointing out the differences between the perspective of Mormon apologists, Mormon critics, and those who sought a more balanced presentation. Both in historic time and how those perspectives have changed over time.

---

There are many sources we can draw upon, some are LDS faith oriented, some quite critical, some neutral. Some of these sources deal with historiograpy and "world view, in a focused and comprehensive way. Other sources could include articles on broader topics or refined LDS topics, as explaining the "historic world view" of Mormonism is common in introductions and summaries.

But, please, my intention is to create a balanced NPOV article on a recognized (but admittedly little known)historical research category. Historiographers, in general, get little press and also receive little credit. But I think, if we come up with common goals, we can do a great job here.

Face it, Mormons love religious history and feel we have a unique and important place in it. We are proud of our ancestors, their efforts and sacrifices. We look forward to a biblically based future and see our place in it as well. There, more ranting............ Please think it through. WBardwin (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All western religions would appear to value history; they all seem to point to stories about X that did Y and how those actions inspire the present day adherent. The study of LDS historiography, as written both within and outside the organization, would seem to offer potential. The fact that LDS history has both a pro and con "history" seems to have been left out of your outline above. Should they not go in the same article? References will be of much stronger value than the typical article. This area could easily evolve into innuendo and original research.

One critical historian that comes immediately to mind is Howe. Quoting from the Historiography article, "Reliability of the sources used, in terms of authorship, credibility of the author, and the authenticity or corruption of the text" seems particularly applicable. W, you seem to miss the value of how history has been written by those outside of the movement. Their work has had a significant impact on the field of study. This particular version of history has also evolved significantly from its very beginnings until today. Of course there are several other of the early critical historians that would be interesting to analyze. My question is has this really been studied or has the only analysis been on LDS historians? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The outline describes an article that is better than the current one and seems, for now, to be unique. I do not understand Storm Rider's comment about pro and con history. History is just history. Interpretations might have different perspectives but those are not history they are reviews of history. I would not be particularly in favor of an article about LDS and Non-LDS Historians. Seems like a category or a list rather than an article. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I reviewed the article on historiography I got the impression that one is not writing an article about history, but about how history is/was written. Did I miss something?

In the LDS movement there have been very, very few historians; it has been a area of apologists, critics, and anti-Mormons. As Foxe said above there was a "historian" from the beginning of the church's history. On the other side there were a group of early "historians" who wrote what they believed was the history of the movement; I gave the example of Howe above. These individuals who wrote history about the movement wrote from vastly different perspectives and both are worthy of analysis.

The outline above seems to address the movement only from the inside of the movement. IMHO, that seems like writing half a story. I reject any concept of lists and do not see any relationship between that and historiography. The concept is to write an article about how the history of this movement was written. The picture between the two has very little correlation. To understand that all you have to do is read any article that Foxe edits and compare his position to that of an editor in the movement.

Based upon the outline above I am not sure if Historiography of the movement is what is being proposed, but something different. I may be completely off base and really be talking about another article entirely. If my understanding of historiography is correct then the outline does not match the title proposed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I do not really understand your comments very well, but it seems to me that the article you are describing would be a sort of original research and synthesis. I do not see how the outline is only half a story, and I am not clear how looking at how Foxe writes vs how other people write is enlightening -- except that Foxe tends to write better than most others. But that seems different than what you are saying and I do not understand what you are saying. As I said, it looks like you are advocating some degree of original research. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue where you are getting your comments; it is totally over my head. OR? We are talking about bloody proposals in how to write this article. In the context of making sure we have a clear outline there can be no such thing as OR. Just put the preconceptions aside and read my words. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to WBardwin if I make the situation more contentious by saying that his working outline looks fine to me.--John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I must be failing at explaining myself. The proposal above was to write an article on Mormonism and historiography. Historiography states "historiography examines the writing of history and the use of historical methods, drawing upon such elements such as authorship, sourcing, interpretation, style, bias, and audience." Put another way and quoting from the same article, ""the study of the way history has been and is written — the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians." My recent comments have centered on this proposal to title it historiography and the outline above.

Could you please explain how the above proposed outline by WBardin fits within this title? If we are proposing to write an article on historiography then we must address how the history of Mormonism has been written. There are only two kinds of historians about the subject, those who write within the movement and those who have written outside of the movement. These historians have addressed the topic differently and their methods have changed over time. As I stated above, "that seems like writing half a story". Maybe the easy solution is drop the proposed title and more clearly identify the objectives that will then allow you to more accurately create a title. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you write and article on Mormonism and Historiography, if you have no sources that discuss Mormonism and Historiography, unless you put other sources together and synthesize the article?--Blue Tie (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tie -- I've given several sources and there are others. Try this one, then: Mormons and Their Historians. By Davis Bitton and Leonard J. Arrington. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988). Or see Gary Topping, an archivist and historiographer who looks at Utah Historians, LDS and not. See also [2]. Many books on Mormon and Utah history also provide an analysis/historiography of the sources they use and or reject. So, what exactly are you looking for? Something that simply says "Mormonism and Historiography"? WBardwin (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am coming in after a lot of revision, but upon my first (and second) reading of the article, it is apparent that the tone of the article (as it stands now) is not exactly neutral in its presentation of how Mormons treat their history. The quote at the end of the opening section sums up well the tone of the rest of the article: "there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness." One easy piece of evidence for this is the fact that there is one source from which nearly half the references in the article are taken. Additionally, the neutrality of this source is disputable (statements such as "truth 'supposedly embedded in history'", and "Mormon high school and college students take required church history courses as part of their training, and their required study of the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants 'is largely history as well.'") These (and other) statements, while containing parts of reality, are not completely accurate, and serve to mislead the reader. The title of the article as it currently stands could be, "Criticisms of Official Mormon History", or "Ways That Mormon Leadership is Perceived to be Oppressive in Relation to History". If the true intent of the article (as StormRider apparently has been searching for) is to present an unbiased collection of facts about the way that the LDS Church presents and deals with history, then there needs to be an equal amount of weight in the article positively presenting information on the subject as well. R. G. Israelsen (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Major restructuring proposal in a related article

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on this sentence?

I'd like some clarification on this sentence, found in the beginning of the section after the "Mormons Remember" section:

"Mormon high school and college students take required church history courses as part of their training." Is this referring to Seminary and Institute classes? If it is, that kind of training is hardly required, and the statement is inaccurate. Both are quite optional. That said, at the church owned institutions (the BYUs, LDS Business College, etc) part of the required curriculum is a series of religious classes. In that sense, the statement is correct, but it explicitly should reflect that. Otherwise, the sentence is misleading as it implies that all Mormon students must take religious courses, even at other, secular schools, which is simply not true. Just a thought. Cheers! SinisterMatt (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I've eliminated the confusion by quoting the Ostlings.--John Foxe (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN and WP:OR in the intro

I moved the following information to this page from the introduction:

In contrast to other 19th-century religious movements such as Shakerism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Christian Science,

My reasons for doing so is that none of the references support the statement being made. This makes a comparison without any explanation in the article. The references also are weak. The article on Baha'i faith is really an article about the Bab and following leaders. You are using a conclusion you have made rather than the references that support the statement.

This kind of statement fits better in the body, if it is developed and shown why the others are different. --^StormRider 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't disagree with the deduction being made, but the topic is not developed in the article. Maybe it could be developed in another article that is more appropriate for the fuller treatment of the statement. This article should be more focused on the topic and not a comparative religion article. --^StormRider 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help you develop the distinction right here. Mormonism is a "history religion"; Shakerism, Bahá'í, and Christian Science are not. I've provided evidence that that statement is true; you've not provided any evidence that it's false—or even controverted. The article is about Mormonism; logically, a discussion of other religions should be confined to the notes. Further,if you'd like to bring in a neutral party to judge between our points of view, that would be fine as well.--John Foxe (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with others commenting; never have had an issue with such. To the contrary, I have always encouraged it.

IMHO, when you use this language as a beginning you need to explain the differences in the text, which is not done. I suspect the reason it is not done is that doing so is not the topic of the article, which then brings us to the question of its merit here. Additionally, you provided references, but not one of them supports the statement. Not one references comparing Mormonism to these groups and stating they were different because of the way they treat history. To get to the point you are trying to make with these references, the reader has to synthesize the information to come to your deduction, which is against Wikipedia policy.

Mormonism is unique among the Restorationist groups because it claims an actual restoration. Stone-Campbells, JWs, Christian Science, etc. claim no actual restoration other than of thought or teaching, i.e. a more pure reading of the Bible. Shakerism is slightly different in that Lee professed revelation, but not a restoration of the church founded by Christ. In that Mormonism teaches an actual restoration, the telling of that story, or history, takes on importance. Where there is a telling of history, historians will be there to gain a better, accurate understanding of it. I think this is what you are trying to say, but making a comparison unsupported by references is not a good way to start.

As an aside, I just read an article in the Spring edition of the Journal of Mormon History entitled "The Sanctification of Mormonism Historical Geography" about the evolution of sacred places and how they are treated in Mormon history. Where once places such as the grove where Joseph Smith prayed held no significance, the event was sacred not the location. That process has changed over time and now the LDS Church makes a concerted effort to make the grove and similar locations sacred. Interesting article that may bring additional information to this article. --^StormRider 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you saying it is not OR; if the references do not clearly say that Mormonism is different from x, y, and z religions and why, then the references you provided are worthless in supporting your language. Why are you fighting over this? Why are you trying to say there is no OR or SYN? --^StormRider 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the statement should remain is that it is not controverted. There's no difference of scholarly opinion about the matter. No one has argued that Shakerism, Bahá'í, and Christian Science are history religions, and every scholar—Mormon or non-Mormon—who's pronounced on the subject says that Mormonism is. (Actually Shakerism, Bahá'í, and Christian Science all include revelations.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are making a deduction that is not supported by the current references. What is needed is a reference that supports the statment you are proposing. If what is supportable is saying Mormonism is a history religion then that is all that can be said, which is btw what my edit does.

Wikipedia is never placed in the position of stating something as fact, that is the place of reputable references. Just because you and I may agree does not mean that it can be said in the article. You are missing the importance and value of what a reference is and you are placing Wikipedia in an unacceptable position. The language you propose may sound good, but it is not supported by RS. Do you understand the distinction I am trying to make? --^StormRider 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concede unconditionally. Ironically, the idea almost certainly arises from something in print, although I haven't a clue where or when I may have read it. (I don't think I'm clever enough to have put Shakers, Bahá'í, and Christian Science together.) It's a notion that struck me as self-evident; I just said, "Right," and moved on. Maybe I'll run into the source again, or maybe like The Lost Chord, it will remain forever a memory and a mystery.--John Foxe (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When we tussle so much over the such a small thing, exactly what is it supposed to be like over the significant issues? Come on Foxe; and you thought it was I thought you were competent.:) A competitive nature combined with the pride of all mortal man can lead us down very unnfortunate paths indeed. --^StormRider 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Image copyright problem with Image:Lds legacy.jpg

The image Image:Lds legacy.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)