Histories written by scholars - Revision history

GregSmith at 12:27, 16 May 2024

2024-05-16T12:27:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 16 May 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:

	=== The intellectual context ===		=== The intellectual context ===
	Some historians insist that ''they'' are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a ~~cover for~~ historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.		Some historians insist that ''they'' are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a shield historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.

	For example, one author wrote:		For example, one author wrote:
Line 41:		Line 41:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.<ref>{{Book:Novak:That Noble Dream}}</ref> They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or ~~unrecognized~~ biases and ideology.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: Martin E. Marty, "Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992), 169–87 and David Earle Bohn, "Unfounded Claims and Impossible Expectations: A Critique of New Mormon History," in the same volume, 227–56. Louis C. Midgley was a major player in the debate, such as in "The Acids of Modernity and the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in ''Faithful History'', 189–215. See also: "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in ''By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley'', ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:502–51; {{Midgley:The Current Battle Over The Book Of Mormon:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Atheists And Cultural Mormons Promote A Naturalistic Humanism:FARMS Review:1995}}; {{Midgley:Directions That Diverge Review Of The Ancient State:FARMS Review:1999}}; {{Midgley:Comments On Critical Exchanges Review Of A Hard:FARMS Review:2001}}; {{Midgley:A Mormon Neo-orthodoxy Challenges Cultural Mormon Neglect Of:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}; {{Dialogue\|author=Thomas G. Alexaner\|article=Historiography and the New Mormon History: A Historian's Perspective\|pages=25&ndash49\|date=Fall 1986\|vol=19\|num=3\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N03_27.pdf}}; {{Dialogue\|author=John-Charles Duffy\|article=Can Deconstructionism Save the Day? "Faithful Scholarship" and the uses of Postmodernism\|pages=1–33\|date=Spring 2008\|vol=41\|num=1\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V41N01_11.pdf}}</ref> This was not a case where only "conservative believers" held this position—even some non-LDS historians argued that the conservative argument was far better grounded in the current philosophy of history than the supposed "objective" faction.<ref>{{Introvigne:The Book Of Mormon Wars A Non-mormon Perspective:JBMS:1996}}</ref>		This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.<ref>{{Book:Novak:That Noble Dream}}</ref> They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unacknowledged biases and ideology.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: Martin E. Marty, "Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992), 169–87 and David Earle Bohn, "Unfounded Claims and Impossible Expectations: A Critique of New Mormon History," in the same volume, 227–56. Louis C. Midgley was a major player in the debate, such as in "The Acids of Modernity and the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in ''Faithful History'', 189–215. See also: "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in ''By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley'', ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:502–51; {{Midgley:The Current Battle Over The Book Of Mormon:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Atheists And Cultural Mormons Promote A Naturalistic Humanism:FARMS Review:1995}}; {{Midgley:Directions That Diverge Review Of The Ancient State:FARMS Review:1999}}; {{Midgley:Comments On Critical Exchanges Review Of A Hard:FARMS Review:2001}}; {{Midgley:A Mormon Neo-orthodoxy Challenges Cultural Mormon Neglect Of:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}; {{Dialogue\|author=Thomas G. Alexaner\|article=Historiography and the New Mormon History: A Historian's Perspective\|pages=25&ndash49\|date=Fall 1986\|vol=19\|num=3\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N03_27.pdf}}; {{Dialogue\|author=John-Charles Duffy\|article=Can Deconstructionism Save the Day? "Faithful Scholarship" and the uses of Postmodernism\|pages=1–33\|date=Spring 2008\|vol=41\|num=1\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V41N01_11.pdf}}</ref> This was not a case where only "conservative believers" held this position—even some non-LDS historians argued that the conservative argument was far better grounded in the current philosophy of history than the supposed "objective" faction.<ref>{{Introvigne:The Book Of Mormon Wars A Non-mormon Perspective:JBMS:1996}}</ref>

	Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Interpreter:Goff:The Inevitability Of Epistemology In Historiography Theory History:2014}}</ref>		Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Interpreter:Goff:The Inevitability Of Epistemology In Historiography Theory History:2014}}</ref>

GregSmith at 12:25, 16 May 2024

2024-05-16T12:25:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 16 May 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.<ref>{{Book:Novak:That Noble Dream}}</ref> They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unrecognized biases and ideology.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: Martin E. Marty, "Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992), 169–87 and David Earle Bohn, "Unfounded Claims and Impossible Expectations: A Critique of New Mormon History," in the same volume, 227–56. Louis C. Midgley was a major player in the debate, such as in "The Acids of Modernity and the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in ''Faithful History'', 189–215. See also: "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in ''By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley'', ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:502–51; {{Midgley:The Current Battle Over The Book Of Mormon:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Atheists And Cultural Mormons Promote A Naturalistic Humanism:FARMS Review:1995}}; {{Midgley:Directions That Diverge Review Of The Ancient State:FARMS Review:1999}}; {{Midgley:Comments On Critical Exchanges Review Of A Hard:FARMS Review:2001}}; {{Midgley:A Mormon Neo-orthodoxy Challenges Cultural Mormon Neglect Of:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}; {{Dialogue\|author=Thomas G. Alexaner\|article=Historiography and the New Mormon History: A Historian's Perspective\|pages=25&ndash49\|date=Fall 1986\|vol=19\|num=3\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N03_27.pdf}}; {{Dialogue\|author=John-Charles Duffy\|article=Can Deconstructionism Save the Day? "Faithful Scholarship" and the uses of Postmodernism\|pages=1–33\|date=Spring 2008\|vol=41\|num=1\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V41N01_11.pdf}}</ref> This was not a case where only "conservative believers" held this position—even some non-LDS historians argued that the conservative argument was far better grounded in the current philosophy of history than the supposed "objective" faction.<ref>{{Introvigne:The Book Of Mormon Wars A Non-mormon Perspective:JBMS:1996}</ref>		This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.<ref>{{Book:Novak:That Noble Dream}}</ref> They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unrecognized biases and ideology.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: Martin E. Marty, "Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992), 169–87 and David Earle Bohn, "Unfounded Claims and Impossible Expectations: A Critique of New Mormon History," in the same volume, 227–56. Louis C. Midgley was a major player in the debate, such as in "The Acids of Modernity and the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in ''Faithful History'', 189–215. See also: "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in ''By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley'', ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:502–51; {{Midgley:The Current Battle Over The Book Of Mormon:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Atheists And Cultural Mormons Promote A Naturalistic Humanism:FARMS Review:1995}}; {{Midgley:Directions That Diverge Review Of The Ancient State:FARMS Review:1999}}; {{Midgley:Comments On Critical Exchanges Review Of A Hard:FARMS Review:2001}}; {{Midgley:A Mormon Neo-orthodoxy Challenges Cultural Mormon Neglect Of:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}; {{Dialogue\|author=Thomas G. Alexaner\|article=Historiography and the New Mormon History: A Historian's Perspective\|pages=25&ndash49\|date=Fall 1986\|vol=19\|num=3\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N03_27.pdf}}; {{Dialogue\|author=John-Charles Duffy\|article=Can Deconstructionism Save the Day? "Faithful Scholarship" and the uses of Postmodernism\|pages=1–33\|date=Spring 2008\|vol=41\|num=1\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V41N01_11.pdf}}</ref> This was not a case where only "conservative believers" held this position—even some non-LDS historians argued that the conservative argument was far better grounded in the current philosophy of history than the supposed "objective" faction.<ref>{{Introvigne:The Book Of Mormon Wars A Non-mormon Perspective:JBMS:1996}}</ref>

	Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Interpreter:Goff:The Inevitability Of Epistemology In Historiography Theory History:2014}}</ref>		Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Interpreter:Goff:The Inevitability Of Epistemology In Historiography Theory History:2014}}</ref>

GregSmith: /* =The intellectual context */

2024-05-16T12:24:36Z

=The intellectual context

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 16 May 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:
	The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.		The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.

	===The intellectual context==		=== The intellectual context ===
	Some historians insist that ''they'' are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a cover for historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.		Some historians insist that ''they'' are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a cover for historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.

	For example, one author wrote:		For example, one author wrote:

	<blockquote>Can secular historians claim that their interests and questions reflect a higher order of significance? Can they demonstrate that their approach to history is truly objective? Can they legitimately refer to their own brand of history as mature, accurate, and insightful as opposed to the inevitably "naive, narrow- minded, pollyannish" histories written by Mormon historians who take their own religious categories as a theme for the understanding of the Mormon past?		<blockquote>
			Can secular historians claim that their interests and questions reflect a higher order of significance? Can they demonstrate that their approach to history is truly objective? Can they legitimately refer to their own brand of history as mature, accurate, and insightful as opposed to the inevitably "naive, narrow- minded, pollyannish" histories written by Mormon historians who take their own religious categories as a theme for the understanding of the Mormon past?

	Such questions must be answered because if the ideal of neutrality and objectivity cannot be approximated, then the historian’s distinction between "good history" and "bad history" evaporates and the secular historian’s claim that somehow his account is of a higher order can no longer hold. ... Such arguments are based on two assumptions: (1) that the historian can somehow be objective and neutral and (2) that the historical record is an independent and objective ground over against which historical explanations can be verified. It is exceedingly doubtful either assumption can stand up to careful and logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=David Earl Bohn\|article=No Higher Ground: Objective History is an Elusive Chimera\|date=May–June 1983\|page=27\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/039-26-32.pdf}}</ref></blockquote>		Such questions must be answered because if the ideal of neutrality and objectivity cannot be approximated, then the historian’s distinction between "good history" and "bad history" evaporates and the secular historian’s claim that somehow his account is of a higher order can no longer hold. ... Such arguments are based on two assumptions: (1) that the historian can somehow be objective and neutral and (2) that the historical record is an independent and objective ground over against which historical explanations can be verified. It is exceedingly doubtful either assumption can stand up to careful and logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=David Earl Bohn\|article=No Higher Ground: Objective History is an Elusive Chimera\|date=May–June 1983\|page=27\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/039-26-32.pdf}}</ref>
			</blockquote>

	This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.<ref>{{Book:Novak:That Noble Dream}} They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unrecognized biases and ideology.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}</ref> Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.<ref></ref>		This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.<ref>{{Book:Novak:That Noble Dream}}</ref> They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unrecognized biases and ideology.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: Martin E. Marty, "Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992), 169–87 and David Earle Bohn, "Unfounded Claims and Impossible Expectations: A Critique of New Mormon History," in the same volume, 227–56. Louis C. Midgley was a major player in the debate, such as in "The Acids of Modernity and the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in ''Faithful History'', 189–215. See also: "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in ''By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley'', ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:502–51; {{Midgley:The Current Battle Over The Book Of Mormon:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Atheists And Cultural Mormons Promote A Naturalistic Humanism:FARMS Review:1995}}; {{Midgley:Directions That Diverge Review Of The Ancient State:FARMS Review:1999}}; {{Midgley:Comments On Critical Exchanges Review Of A Hard:FARMS Review:2001}}; {{Midgley:A Mormon Neo-orthodoxy Challenges Cultural Mormon Neglect Of:FARMS Review:1994}}; {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}; {{Dialogue\|author=Thomas G. Alexaner\|article=Historiography and the New Mormon History: A Historian's Perspective\|pages=25&ndash49\|date=Fall 1986\|vol=19\|num=3\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N03_27.pdf}}; {{Dialogue\|author=John-Charles Duffy\|article=Can Deconstructionism Save the Day? "Faithful Scholarship" and the uses of Postmodernism\|pages=1–33\|date=Spring 2008\|vol=41\|num=1\|url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V41N01_11.pdf}}</ref> This was not a case where only "conservative believers" held this position—even some non-LDS historians argued that the conservative argument was far better grounded in the current philosophy of history than the supposed "objective" faction.<ref>{{Introvigne:The Book Of Mormon Wars A Non-mormon Perspective:JBMS:1996}</ref>

			Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Interpreter:Goff:The Inevitability Of Epistemology In Historiography Theory History:2014}}</ref>

	One author at the independent ''Sunstone'' magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:		One author at the independent ''Sunstone'' magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:

	<blockquote>At that time, SUNSTONE had just published an article challenging some of the assumptions of those intellectual heroes known in the Church as "New Mormon Historians." What startled--and disillusioned--me was the discovery that a number of historians had gone to great lengths to discourage the publication of this manuscript. For them, open discussion and disagreement was insufficient; they sought to prevent distribution of ideas contrary to their own. Those who had fought against intellectual suppression had suddenly embraced it.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=Scott C. Dunn\|article=So Dangerous it Couldn't be Talked About\|date=November–December 1983\|num=42\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/042-42-49.pdf}}</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>
	Additionally, Elder Packer was telling ''LDS teachers and historians employed by the Church'' that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church. Omitting spiritual ideas and claims is no more "objective" than including such things. But, in the intellectual environment of the time, secularist approaches were attempting to claim the high ground of being "real" history, while everything else was biased, "non-objective" writing.		At that time, SUNSTONE had just published an article challenging some of the assumptions of those intellectual heroes known in the Church as "New Mormon Historians." What startled—and disillusioned—me was the discovery that a number of historians had gone to great lengths to discourage the publication of this manuscript. For them, open discussion and disagreement was insufficient; they sought to prevent distribution of ideas contrary to their own. Those who had fought against intellectual suppression had suddenly embraced it.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=Scott C. Dunn\|article=So Dangerous it Couldn't be Talked About\|date=November–December 1983\|num=42\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/042-42-49.pdf}}</ref>
			</blockquote>

	===Second criticism===		In addition to this intellectual current, Elder Packer was telling ''LDS teachers and historians employed by the Church'' that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church. Omitting spiritual ideas and claims is no more "objective" than including such things. But, in the intellectual environment of the time, secularist approaches were attempting to claim the high ground of being "real" history, while everything else was biased, "non-objective" writing.

			=== Second criticism ===
	The second is the claim that the Church historical department ''staff'' were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. Apparently the author hopes we will believe this is a means for the Church to suppress scholarly work.		The second is the claim that the Church historical department ''staff'' were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. Apparently the author hopes we will believe this is a means for the Church to suppress scholarly work.

Line 58:		Line 65:

	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
	[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]		[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]

	[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las historias escritas por los historiadores mormones no son confiables?]]		[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las historias escritas por los historiadores mormones no son confiables?]]

GregSmith at 12:07, 16 May 2024

2024-05-16T12:07:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:07, 16 May 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:
	The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.		The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.

	Some historians insist that ''they'' are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a cover for historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}</ref>		===The intellectual context==
			Some historians insist that ''they'' are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a cover for historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.

			For example, one author wrote:

			<blockquote>Can secular historians claim that their interests and questions reflect a higher order of significance? Can they demonstrate that their approach to history is truly objective? Can they legitimately refer to their own brand of history as mature, accurate, and insightful as opposed to the inevitably "naive, narrow- minded, pollyannish" histories written by Mormon historians who take their own religious categories as a theme for the understanding of the Mormon past?

			Such questions must be answered because if the ideal of neutrality and objectivity cannot be approximated, then the historian’s distinction between "good history" and "bad history" evaporates and the secular historian’s claim that somehow his account is of a higher order can no longer hold. ... Such arguments are based on two assumptions: (1) that the historian can somehow be objective and neutral and (2) that the historical record is an independent and objective ground over against which historical explanations can be verified. It is exceedingly doubtful either assumption can stand up to careful and logical scrutiny.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=David Earl Bohn\|article=No Higher Ground: Objective History is an Elusive Chimera\|date=May–June 1983\|page=27\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/039-26-32.pdf}}</ref></blockquote>

			This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.<ref>{{Book:Novak:That Noble Dream}} They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unrecognized biases and ideology.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}</ref> Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.<ref></ref>

	One author at the independent ''Sunstone'' magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:		One author at the independent ''Sunstone'' magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:

GregSmith at 11:37, 16 May 2024

2024-05-16T11:37:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:37, 16 May 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:
	One author at the independent ''Sunstone'' magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:		One author at the independent ''Sunstone'' magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:

	<blockquote>At that time, SUNSTONE had just published an article challenging some of the assumptions of those intellectual heroes known in the Church as "New Mormon Historians." What startled--and disillusioned--me was the discovery that a number of historians had gone to great lengths to discourage the publication of this manuscript. For them, open discussion and disagreement was insufficient; they sought to prevent distribution of ideas contrary to their own. Those who had fought against intellectual suppression had suddenly embraced it.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=Scott C. Dunn\|article=So Dangerous it Couldn't be Talked About\|date=November–December 1983\|num=42\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/042-42-49.pdf</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>At that time, SUNSTONE had just published an article challenging some of the assumptions of those intellectual heroes known in the Church as "New Mormon Historians." What startled--and disillusioned--me was the discovery that a number of historians had gone to great lengths to discourage the publication of this manuscript. For them, open discussion and disagreement was insufficient; they sought to prevent distribution of ideas contrary to their own. Those who had fought against intellectual suppression had suddenly embraced it.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=Scott C. Dunn\|article=So Dangerous it Couldn't be Talked About\|date=November–December 1983\|num=42\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/042-42-49.pdf}}</ref></blockquote>
	Additionally, Elder Packer was telling ''LDS teachers and historians employed by the Church'' that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church. Omitting spiritual ideas and claims is no more "objective" than including such things. But, in the intellectual environment of the time, secularist approaches were attempting to claim the high ground of being "real" history, while everything else was biased, "non-objective" writing.		Additionally, Elder Packer was telling ''LDS teachers and historians employed by the Church'' that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church. Omitting spiritual ideas and claims is no more "objective" than including such things. But, in the intellectual environment of the time, secularist approaches were attempting to claim the high ground of being "real" history, while everything else was biased, "non-objective" writing.

GregSmith: /* First criticism */

2024-05-16T11:36:41Z

First criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:36, 16 May 2024
Line 28:		Line 28:
	#The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking or teaching.		#The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking or teaching.

	The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work. ~~In other words~~, he was telling LDS historians that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church.		The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.

			Some historians insist that ''they'' are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a cover for historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.<ref>For examples of the debate, see: {{Midgley:Editors Introduction Debating Evangelicals:FARMS Review:2008}}</ref>

			One author at the independent ''Sunstone'' magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:

			<blockquote>At that time, SUNSTONE had just published an article challenging some of the assumptions of those intellectual heroes known in the Church as "New Mormon Historians." What startled--and disillusioned--me was the discovery that a number of historians had gone to great lengths to discourage the publication of this manuscript. For them, open discussion and disagreement was insufficient; they sought to prevent distribution of ideas contrary to their own. Those who had fought against intellectual suppression had suddenly embraced it.<ref>{{Sunstone\|author=Scott C. Dunn\|article=So Dangerous it Couldn't be Talked About\|date=November–December 1983\|num=42\|url=https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/042-42-49.pdf</ref></blockquote>
			Additionally, Elder Packer was telling ''LDS teachers and historians employed by the Church'' that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church. Omitting spiritual ideas and claims is no more "objective" than including such things. But, in the intellectual environment of the time, secularist approaches were attempting to claim the high ground of being "real" history, while everything else was biased, "non-objective" writing.

	===Second criticism===		===Second criticism===

GregSmith at 11:24, 16 May 2024

2024-05-16T11:24:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 16 May 2024
Line 6:		Line 6:
	The author of the critical book ''One Nation Under Gods'' claims that "Mormon leaders, especially since the 1970s, have repeatedly called for LDS historians to 'tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.'" and that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history, especially with regard to its earliest years, are those that have been produced by the LDS church."		The author of the critical book ''One Nation Under Gods'' claims that "Mormon leaders, especially since the 1970s, have repeatedly called for LDS historians to 'tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.'" and that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history, especially with regard to its earliest years, are those that have been produced by the LDS church."

	How does one define "least reliable?" The assertion ~~by the author~~ that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history" are those "produced by the LDS church" ~~is very interesting in light of the fact~~ that some of the source documents used by the author in his book include the [[Journal of Discourses\|''Journal of Discourses'']], the ''Messenger and Advocate'', the ''Millennial Star'', the ''Evening and Morning Star'', the ''Ensign'', ''Conference Reports'', and the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', to name a few. Each of these sources is viewed by members and non-members alike as being "produced by the LDS church." If they are so unreliable, why does the author cite from them? If there is a disagreement between two sources—one from the Church and the other from someone viewed as an enemy of the Church—how does the author know which one is more reliable?		How does one define "least reliable?" The assertion that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history" are those "produced by the LDS church" does not acknowledge that some of the source documents used by the author in his book include the [[Journal of Discourses\|''Journal of Discourses'']], the ''Messenger and Advocate'', the ''Millennial Star'', the ''Evening and Morning Star'', the ''Ensign'', ''Conference Reports'', and the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', to name a few.

	~~The author~~ of ~~''One Nation Under Gods'' castigates~~ sources produced by the ~~LDS~~ Church, ~~but then uses many of those materials in constructing and expressing viewpoints. He also cites material~~ from ~~people who have a professed grudge against~~ the ~~LDS~~ Church and ~~its teachings. Reliability~~ of ~~documents~~, ~~then, becomes an issue of acceptability to each individual.~~		Each of these sources is viewed by members and non-members alike as being "produced by the Church. If they are so unreliable, why does the author cite them? If there is a disagreement between two sources—one from the Church and the other from someone viewed as an enemy of the Church—how does the author know which one is more reliable? And why if he is relying on Church sources, why does he so often misrepresent the Church?

	==Elder Boyd K. Packer's comment: "Some things that are true are not very useful"==		==Elder Boyd K. Packer's comment: "Some things that are true are not very useful"==

	Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," Address to the Fifth Annual CES Religious Educators' Symposium, 1981; see also ''Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 101-122; see also {{BYUS1\|author=Boyd K. Packer\|article='The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.'\|vol=21\|num=3\|date=Summer 1981\|start=259–278}} {{pdflink\|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1145}} Later references to this address refer to the ''BYU Studies'' reprint, since the PDF is available on-line. It starts on page 1.</ref> The quote "Some things that are true are not very useful" has become a favorite of critics ~~as a way~~ to demonstrate that the Church suppresses truth or intellectual thought.		Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," Address to the Fifth Annual CES Religious Educators' Symposium, 1981; see also ''Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 101-122; see also {{BYUS1\|author=Boyd K. Packer\|article='The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.'\|vol=21\|num=3\|date=Summer 1981\|start=259–278}} {{pdflink\|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1145}} Later references to this address refer to the ''BYU Studies'' reprint, since the PDF is available on-line. It starts on page 1.</ref> The quote "Some things that are true are not very useful" has become a favorite of critics to demonstrate that the Church suppresses truth or intellectual thought.

	==Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not ~~be objective~~==		==Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not aim for objectivity==

	~~An examination of~~ the ~~reference provided above may prove insightful~~. There are two ~~main parts~~ to this ~~reference.~~ First, is the ~~assertion~~ that Church officials have "routinely" insisted LDS-authored historical materials be "faith promoting" at the expense of being historically accurate. To prove this assertion, the author provides the example of a talk by Boyd K. Packer that was published in ''BYU Studies''. Elder Packer stressed four main points:		As is often the case, there is more to the story that we can only learn by examining the original quotation in context.

			There are two aspects to this criticism:

			===First criticism===
			The first is the claim that Church officials have "routinely" insisted LDS-authored historical materials be "faith promoting" at the expense of being historically accurate. To prove this assertion, the author provides the example of a talk by Boyd K. Packer that was published in ''BYU Studies''. Elder Packer stressed four main points:

	#There is no such thing as an accurate, '''objective''' history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.		#There is no such thing as an accurate, '''objective''' history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.
Line 23:		Line 28:
	#The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking or teaching.		#The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking or teaching.

	The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of ~~LDS~~ Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work. In other words, he was telling LDS historians that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church.		The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work. In other words, he was telling LDS historians that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church.

			===Second criticism===
			The second is the claim that the Church historical department ''staff'' were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. Apparently the author hopes we will believe this is a means for the Church to suppress scholarly work.

			The author never confronts the issue of whether the Church has a right to control (a) access to their own historical records, and (b) how those records are used by employees.

			If we considered a business, there would be no question that businesses have the right to do control access to their records and insist that their employees' use of those records not actively undermine the company's goals.

	The ~~second main part~~ of the ONUG reference is the claim that the Church historical department ''staff'' were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. It appears that the author feels such a form is an example of ~~ways in which the LDS Church suppresses scholarly work. The author never addresses the issue~~, ~~however, of whether~~ the ~~Church has a~~ right to control ~~(a) access to their~~ own ~~historical~~ records, and ~~(b)~~ how ~~those records~~ are used. If ~~this were a discussion about business corporations~~, ~~there would~~ be ~~no question that the businesses have the right~~ to ~~do both — control access and use of past business records.~~		Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or any church, for that matter) have the right to control its own records and how they are used? If businesses and governments do, why not churches? And, why should the Church be required to ''pay'' employees to undermine it?

	~~Does The Church~~ of ~~Jesus Christ~~ of ~~Latter~~-~~day Saints (or any church, for that matter)~~ have ~~the right to control its own records~~ and ~~how they are used? If businesses and governments do, why not churches?~~		This stipulation of employment is thus unsurprising, and not a sign of sinister goings-on. Most organizations have similar policies and standards.

	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

GregSmith at 11:14, 16 May 2024

2024-05-16T11:14:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, 16 May 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:

	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}
			<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
	[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]		[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]

	[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las historias escritas por los historiadores mormones no son confiables?]]		[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las historias escritas por los historiadores mormones no son confiables?]]

GregSmith at 11:14, 16 May 2024

2024-05-16T11:14:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, 16 May 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{Navigation Latter-day Saint history}}		{{Navigation Latter-day Saint history}}
	{{Header}}		{{Header}}
	===Ironically, those who criticize Mormon histories as being unreliable and incomplete use Church-produced documents as their source material===		==Ironically, those who criticize Mormon histories as being unreliable and incomplete use Church-produced documents as their source material==

	The author of the critical book ''One Nation Under Gods'' claims that "Mormon leaders, especially since the 1970s, have repeatedly called for LDS historians to 'tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.'" and that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history, especially with regard to its earliest years, are those that have been produced by the LDS church."		The author of the critical book ''One Nation Under Gods'' claims that "Mormon leaders, especially since the 1970s, have repeatedly called for LDS historians to 'tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.'" and that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history, especially with regard to its earliest years, are those that have been produced by the LDS church."
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The author of ''One Nation Under Gods'' castigates sources produced by the LDS Church, but then uses many of those materials in constructing and expressing viewpoints. He also cites material from people who have a professed grudge against the LDS Church and its teachings. Reliability of documents, then, becomes an issue of acceptability to each individual.		The author of ''One Nation Under Gods'' castigates sources produced by the LDS Church, but then uses many of those materials in constructing and expressing viewpoints. He also cites material from people who have a professed grudge against the LDS Church and its teachings. Reliability of documents, then, becomes an issue of acceptability to each individual.

	===Elder Boyd K. Packer's comment: "Some things that are true are not very useful"===		==Elder Boyd K. Packer's comment: "Some things that are true are not very useful"==

	Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," Address to the Fifth Annual CES Religious Educators' Symposium, 1981; see also ''Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 101-122; see also {{BYUS1\|author=Boyd K. Packer\|article='The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.'\|vol=21\|num=3\|date=Summer 1981\|start=259–278}} {{pdflink\|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1145}} Later references to this address refer to the ''BYU Studies'' reprint, since the PDF is available on-line. It starts on page 1.</ref> The quote "Some things that are true are not very useful" has become a favorite of critics as a way to demonstrate that the Church suppresses truth or intellectual thought.		Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," Address to the Fifth Annual CES Religious Educators' Symposium, 1981; see also ''Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 101-122; see also {{BYUS1\|author=Boyd K. Packer\|article='The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.'\|vol=21\|num=3\|date=Summer 1981\|start=259–278}} {{pdflink\|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1145}} Later references to this address refer to the ''BYU Studies'' reprint, since the PDF is available on-line. It starts on page 1.</ref> The quote "Some things that are true are not very useful" has become a favorite of critics as a way to demonstrate that the Church suppresses truth or intellectual thought.

	===Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective===		==Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective==

	An examination of the reference provided above may prove insightful. There are two main parts to this reference. First, is the assertion that Church officials have "routinely" insisted LDS-authored historical materials be "faith promoting" at the expense of being historically accurate. To prove this assertion, the author provides the example of a talk by Boyd K. Packer that was published in ''BYU Studies''. Elder Packer stressed four main points:		An examination of the reference provided above may prove insightful. There are two main parts to this reference. First, is the assertion that Church officials have "routinely" insisted LDS-authored historical materials be "faith promoting" at the expense of being historically accurate. To prove this assertion, the author provides the example of a talk by Boyd K. Packer that was published in ''BYU Studies''. Elder Packer stressed four main points:

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T21:02:27Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation Latter-day Saint history}}		{{Navigation Latter-day Saint history}}

	{{Header}}		{{Header}}
	===Ironically, those who criticize Mormon histories as being unreliable and incomplete use Church-produced documents as their source material===		===Ironically, those who criticize Mormon histories as being unreliable and incomplete use Church-produced documents as their source material===