Comments on: Joseph Smith, Thomas Dick, and the Tricky Task of Determining Influence

By: Juvenile Instructor » Considering Biography and Thought in Early Mormon Thought

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:57:42 +0000

[...] fruitful, particularly when considering exceptionally thorny issues like the nature of God. I have personally proposed a more eclectic approach to the antebellum environment in which Mormonism was raised by [...]

By: stan

stan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:41:52 +0000

fwiw [sic]! (when i use that it’s not an acronym but onomatopoeia, fwiw)–glad to hear i am that up there by your coolness/sickness factor.

have you found the hall that Wm James Gifforded in? i hear (read, actually) there is a plaque on the wall with his name on it.

Speaking of WJ, he apparently thought Edinburgh was “surely the noblest city ever built by man,” FYI (i can acronymate too!) Soak it up mind-blowing up, bro!

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:08:13 +0000

Stan: Interests have taken me more towards German theology and American reception of foreign ideologies in general. I attended a few of the Gifford lectures (they have them every night for two weeks), but I’m keeping up mostly via online streaming. They are blowing my mind. (literally–they are on the possibilities of the mind.)

(Oh, and I consider you cool enough to say “sick”–fwiw)

Steve: fantastic source.

By: Steve Fleming

Steve Fleming — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:50:06 +0000

Just to continually push the idea that the sources for all this stuff is medieval, here's a quote from Jean-Claude Schmitt's Ghost's in the Middle Ages. Hugh of St. Victor, an important 12th century theologian said that the spirit was something between the soul and the body and thus not immaterial while not being quite material. “Said Alcher of Clairvaux not without unease, the spirit was ‘something’: ‘All that is not body and which however is something is said rightly to be ‘spirit.’ Page 197.

By: stan

stan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:51:21 +0000

so where have your interests taken you Ben?
a project on Dick would be oh so snazzy! [i was about to say "sick" but i am just not quite that hip, or whatever]

you attending the Gifford Lectures there in e-burgh?

By: BHodges

BHodges — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:24:51 +0000

WVS: right on.

By: WVS

WVS — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:46:05 +0000

Thanks Ben. You’re certainly correct that Abraham is complex. With the critical text to appear soon, it will be interesting to see what ideas it adds to the mix. I think, based on what I’ve seen so far, that one could make a case for Abr. 3, or parts of it at least, being around in late 1835. But information is sparse, for sure.

To your point, looking at context is important, and influence has been a sensitive question for historian’s who happen to be Latter-day Saints. I’m old enough to remember what happened on the inside in the 70s. It was both a little alarming and in the end disappointing. Hopefully the new movement in the direction of “laying it all out” means that balanced, considered and professional work will be accepted as a part of that movement. I think MMM shows this.

Blair’s point is partly an individual hurdle. Secular treatment of the sources will often lead to conclusions or at least propositions that require interpretation from a perspective of faith. Bushman clearly faced this and saw it as a difficulty in RSR.

Anyway, great post. Thanks.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:27:49 +0000

All scholarship is flawed, though. The flaws become more apparent depending on the questions one believes are being addressed, or based on the questions one thinks should be addressed.

I’m fine with pointing out flaws in previous research and like you and other folks in this discussion I’m excited to see different questions asked and problems addressed. These new directions have problems as well, and the previous questions haven’t been invalidated only insofar as people agree that they can’t be answered to one’s satisfaction.

I like the contextual and conceptual approach you describe, but it still has implications for the other approaches you discuss, no matter their flaws.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:16:04 +0000

Dave: exactly.

BH: I see what you are saying, and I understand that. But, as I argue here, I think trying to settle those questions are just going to lead to dead ends, and in the end can’t be solved. The result, then, is usually flawed scholarship.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:58:21 +0000

To put it more succinctly, you say you don’t feel such tensions as a historian. I believe this has more to do with your approach, assumptions, and the questions you ask (which are valid and fruitful in their own right). The tensions are still valid and still there, they just aren’t being addressed for your purposes. Does that make sense?