If it’s only the first meeting, I suppose expectations aren’t too lofty yet. However, perhaps over time the St. Louis Mormon Historical Society can land researchers approaching the acumen of, say, reliable Mormon historians D. Michael Quinn or Fawn Brodie.

DJB, I sense the snark, loud and clear. But because I’ve never been good at returning cutting sarcasm online, I’m going to give you a straight answer. Both Quinn and Brodie are/were talented historians, though Brodie’s work has aged poorly given her reliance on Freudian psychoanalysis. But both wrote from a position openly antagonistic to the church, and that diminishes the credibility of their work.

For interested, fair-minded readers, I recommend Richard Bushman, Leonard Arrington, Kathryn Daynes, and Ron Walker for critically credible Mormon history.

Credibility diminished? Bushman himself referred to Brodie’s as “brilliant.” He also cautions in an observation, which you seem not to consider, that “some believing [Mormon] writers do the opposite. They play to Mormon prejudices while rejecting the larger world.” If you mention Arrington, you also need to acknowledge that Quinn was his primary assistant while he served as official LDS Church Historian. This was before Quinn’s well-deserved leadership posts in the Utah Historical Association, Mormon Historical Association and History Department (not the markedly inferior “Church History and Doctrine” department) of Brigham Young University.

The issue that should be central in any meaningful discussion about Mormon historians is whether they forsake professionalism and integrity and adhere to the notion of providing only “faith-promoting history.” This directive was infamously given by Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Boyd K. Packer in 1981 wherein he stated “some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.” He continued, by specifically directing his comments to all historians who were members of the LDS Church, with the following, “One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for ‘advanced history’, is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be held accountable.” A reasonable question facing the nascent St. Louis Mormon Historical Society is whether those members of it who are LDS will be selective and choosy in their research and presentations. Let’s leave allegations of sarcasm aside, take the high road, and stick to the substance by asking and answering fair questions.

DJB, there’s very little I object to in your comment, except the aggressive tone. I very much enjoy “meaningful discussion about Mormon historians,” and would be pleased to engage in such when it is germane to a post. Best wishes to you on this rainy day!

Hey possumgrapelovelies,

Watch your post closely! It might disappear before your very eyes!

I posted nearly the same observation on Friday around noon, but when I returned to see if there were additional remarks, I actually found one less… Mine!

Ms. Welch’s article about the St. Louis Mormon Historical Society, and the subsequent erasure of my post, prompted me to research a bit about the “genesis” (Ha, I love your poetry!) of the LDS. I learned plenty, but unlike you, I focused upon the nefarious activities of the young “prophet”. It turns out, Joeseph Smith’s premature death was at the hands of vigilante militiamen who shot him while he was in jail after being arrested for, get this, ordering his followers to destroy the printing press of one of his critics!

Hope you saved your post, possumgrapelovelies, you may need it!

Yep, I’ve deleted a couple of comments on this thread. That’s my prerogative as a blogger, although I try to use it sparingly because I believe in generally open discussion. I’ve been on the other end, and I know that it’s frustrating, even hurtful, to have comments deleted. I want to cultivate a constructive, mutually respectful relationship with the commenters here, and to that end I invite you to review the Civil Religion comment policy here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/help/stories.nsf/termsofservice/story/58C6115339C8CADB8625706800596EE1?OpenDocument

I won’t delete challenges or criticisms that are made politely (see the “living room rule” on the page linked above) and in the spirit of good-faith civil discussion. Some of them I will try to respond to, others I’ll just leave alone. But I will delete drive-by defamations and bad-faith falsehoods. Obviously there’s going to be a degree of judgment on my part; I’ll do my best to be fair, but sometimes I might get it wrong. If you want to ensure that your comment stays up, take extra care to make it in a civil and constructive discourse.

Cheers!

Hey Ms. Welch,

Thanks for leaving my second post intact. Double thanks, because apparently some folks take offense at my willingness to point out some misconceptions I feel they have. I’m not sure if it’s my style or content they object to. I actually knew that bloggers here had the authority to summarily delete posts, and I feared that you deleted mine purely because of my name and (ahem) ill-deserved reputation. Thanks for making it reason fairly clear.

Actually, I’d like to discuss why you think the subject I mentioned was a “bad-faith falsehood”. I thought it was common and factual knowledge, and well documented, too, if not acknowledged (if even mentioned) in LDS circles. I know the WWW contains plenty of false opinion, but there certainly appears to be plenty of compelling evidence regarding the issue I mentioned. Actually, my “drive-by defamation” was only partly aimed at Joseph Smith. The other part was aimed at Believers who prefer to ignore or dismiss contrary evidence without scrutiny in order to remain safe in their comfort zone. Nothing personal against Mormons and the LDS, for me it’s all Believers.

And after all, Ms. Welch, what if the evidence is true?

Thanks again, for not deleting my post #2 of (now) 3, and I hope you will join me to help clear up the matter regarding Joseph Smith’s pre-prophet days.

Joseph was a product of his rural culture and worldview, one that was suffused with magic and supernaturalism. As a teenager, he seems to have gained a reputation as a village seer, and he used various objects in those activities, including two stones. In 1826 and 1830, suits were brought against Joseph for being a “disorderly person”; from the (scarce) original sources, it appears that Joseph was discharged from the 1826 trial, and acquitted in the 1830 trials. Joseph was a polarizing figure, no doubt about it, and misinformation of all kinds abounds. I invite you to check your sources carefully; even hostile professional (published) biographies are better than unverified websites.

Hello Ms. Welch,

My original source is unreachable, he died back in the late 70’s. He was a teacher, scholar, community leader and religious; he was a wise man, at least to me. He said definitive court records proving Joseph Smith’s actual conviction for several accusations had been produced, including action for fraud. His source? Some scholarly religious journal, though most certainly not Mormon.

I think it’s probably safe to say that Mormon Believers are going to reject any source that definitively attacks the foundation of their Belief, just as the Believers of any religion, so it’s probably pointless to continue with “this source says this” and “that source is whitewashing”. It doesn’t matter about independent sources, I doubt we will ever agree on the objectivity of any. You will Believe what you want.

The Mormon’s own legend describes magic golden plates with magic “reformed egyptian writing” on them, and magic “seer stones” named “Urim” and “Thummin”, all conveniently absent, “seen” only by a handful of Joseph Smith’s loyal inner circle. Don’t we know in this day and age that magic “seer stones” are just make believe? Yes? Then Joseph Smith was lying? No? Then “seer stones” real and maybe Joseph Smith had a pair. (Evidently, a lot of ladies thought so, much to the chagrin of his original wife!) Do you Believe there were Golden Plates, and that men could never conspire to make them seem as if they were real even though they knew it was a sham? If yes, then maybe Joseph Smith was telling the truth about Moroni. If men can lie and “swear to it” in writing, then maybe a known rascal who scratched a living trying to locate buried treasure with magic stones and diving rods was just pulling another scam.

Oh, and then there’s the issue of Indian Ancestry. Will this be discussed at St. Louis Mormon Historical Society lectures, too?

By the way, was it an interesting meeting? What was the topic? There are so many opportunities for intellectual enlightenment in this town… I sure hate to pass on so many of them. That’s not “tongue in cheek”. Too often, I go to lectures and find it impossible to ask meaningful, sometimes pointed questions and get meaningful answers in public, or even share what I’m thinking. This little Civil Religion blogoshpere offers a small forum for just that.

dog—do you mind if I call you dog?—I trust that you will understand why I remain unmoved by an anonymous, sourceless claim that contradicts general historical consensus. I think you’re right that it’s probably pointless to continue, and obviously I don’t have the time to respond to and correct every bit of misinformation that my posts elicit. You think all religious belief is silly, you aren’t singling out the Mormons, okay, I get it. But there are others reading your comment, other open-minded observers who might be curious about Mormon history and wonder about what you wrote. So it’s to them that I’m responding here, I guess.

Yes, of course, most Mormons’ convictions are based on a spiritual witness, not on evidence for or against any particular historical point. This is an epistemological issue: spiritual knowledge is revealed, not rationally determined on the basis of evidence. But that doesn’t mean that all Mormons are blind to the historical challenges to their faith, or that they can’t respond rationally to those challenges—-understanding all the while that a rational response to a challenge is not the same thing as a spiritual witness that anchors faith.

So yes, there are historical challenges to Mormon faith claims. Some are only apparent challenges based on a misunderstanding, some are genuine issues that have been resolved with unfolding historical evidence, others are persistent questions that haven’t yet been fully resolved. Mormon scholars over the past thirty years have worked hard to tackle these historical challenges head on, and to respond to historically-based criticisms. Some critics have shown themselves to be genuinely interested in constructive dialogue on these questions, even when they aren’t fully satisfied with the answers; others have shown themselves to be bad-faith opportunists uninterested in rational discussion.

Now, clearly, as in any historical inquiry, there are going to be documents that require interpretation, and Mormon scholars are going to interpret the evidence in line with their core convictions. But that doesn’t mean that they will twist, ignore, doctor or otherwise mangle the evidence; truly, I invite interested observers to explore the publications of FARMS, FAIR and other Mormon apologetic organizations of good reputation. They’re not going to convince you that the Book of Mormon is scripture, nor is that their intent. But they will respond honestly to historical problems, both real and apparent, to the best of their ability. I can point you to a considered response to every issue you’ve raised here.

Okay, I’m done here. I hope you’re enjoying the gorgeous weather today! I took my kids to the zoo. Highly recommend.