Comments on: Are Believing Historians at a Disadvantage?

By: John Turner

John Turner — Wed, 14 May 2008 03:08:01 +0000

I think I’ll take Dave’s advice.

The problems faced by believing Mormons are hardly unique, though perhaps heightened. Believing evangelical historians like my mentor George Marsden had to endure considerable skepticism and some derision from secular quarters. In those secular quarters, Mormons are simply considered one step further removed from reality. (Sorry) But it’s a relative difference, not a difference in kind. The only sort of acceptable religious belief in academia — at least in terms of Christianity, broadly construed — is a liberal / mainline religiosity that stays in the closet.

By: Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:33:11 +0000

# 14 is an option and on the flip side you can choose to write as if all the traditions are true. My thoughts are the need of consistency. They either all are not true, or all are.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:47:32 +0000

There is another option. Some scholars of faith choose to write as if they are not believers. They accept as normative the basically secular model that undegirds the study of religion in the modern era when it comes to research, while accepting the supernatural in their personal religious lives. There is some debate about this, but the idea of “bracketing” is a common tactic among teachers of religious studies in state schools and other institutions without strong church affiliation, and more than a few pracitioners do the same when writing about religious traditions. It is not the most popular approach, but it deserves some mention in the debate. Ben’s post has got me thinking about the debates between phenomenologists and functionalists in religious studies in such a way that I may put a post up about Bruce Lincoln’s famous “Theses on Method.”

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:29:16 +0000

If Bushman, who built his reputation as a historian doing work outside Mormon Studies, can’t get the nod as doing acceptable LDS history, then no believing LDS historian is going be acceptable. At least unless they adopt the conclusions favored by secular historians who dismiss all religious claims.

Maybe the best way for a believing historian to proceed is to write about a different denomination. You may be better attuned to the rhythms of that faith than are secularists, but your work won’t automatically be pigeonholed as apologetic by secular historians. Look how well Jan Shipps’ work on Mormonism has been received!

By: BHodges

BHodges — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:09:40 +0000

Is there a way to reach both audiences?

You have to consider a few extra questions in order to really reach a conclusion on this initial one. First, do you want to reach “both audiences” (recognizing this “both” is something of a false dichotomy; though I realize your point in asking is not to imply that this is necessarily black and white)? What is your intent in writing? Is there a place for miracles, visions and revelations in the mainstream academic community? If so, where?

I personally see no problem with including the accounts of people who speak of their revelations, etc. any more than including someone’s account of their job history. Let the people speak for themselves as much as you can, acknowledging that there is the issue of selectivity, but realize you can give different sides of the story and allow different parties to speak for themselves. Perhaps historians worry too much when dealing with subjects close to home; and no matter what, you, as a believing Mormon, will lose some readers at the outset either way you go.

Can you reach both audiences? If they read your stuff and give you a hearing, you’ve reached them as much as you need to, in my opinion.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:25:54 +0000

Yes, I believe it’s available at the Univ. of Utah. Bagley cites it in his MMM book.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:10:27 +0000

Justin, as always, you da man.

Is it his his papers collection somewhere?

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:29:03 +0000

Regarding footnote 1, Kelly wrote an unpublished manuscript entitled Utah’s Black Friday: History of the Mountain Meadow Massacre of 1857.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:57:18 +0000

Ben, I think “faithful scholarship” gets a bit of a cynical treatment in this article too.

Clark, alas, I only get the print version.

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:45:49 +0000

Seth, anyone with a copy of that article they want to email me? (To save me a trip to the library) I’m pretty curious about what it is about given my affinity for Derrida and Heidegger.