I’m puzzled as to why juvenile jabs at me are OK but comments are not

I certainly hope you did not read my response to you as a juvenile jab at you. If that’s the case, let me assure it was not intended as such, and I admit to having difficulty trying to figure out how you could get that from what I said.

Granted, Jan Shipps may be the sacred cow of religious history, but being on everybody’s Rolodex doesn’t make her a good historian.

Of course it doesn’t. Again, others disagree, but that is beside the point here. The fact that she’s on everybody’s rolodex, though, does in fact make her the foremost non-Mormon interpreter of LDS history. “Foremost”–as in “the most prominent in rank.”

I’m glad the denizens of this blog are above writing “largely synthetic” history

No one said that.

as in “not natural or genuine; artificial or contrived: counterfeit”

No, as in historical synthesis, Will. Howe’s What Hath God Wrought (his only book to really engage Mormonism in any substantial way) was historical synthesis–meaning not a monograph, but a synthesis of existing scholarship.

I fail to see how any historian can avoid trying to synthesize the original sources and latest interpretations–which is what Howe does very well

You’re right. Howe succeeds wonderfully. His book is first rate, and well deserving of the Pullitzer it won. I’ve praised his work on this blog and elsewhere repeatedly, and used his book as a text for a class I TA’d/taught last year. He is an excellent scholar, an adept historian, and from everything I hear, a wonderful person.

As for MacKinnon, yes, his work isn’t on the radar of most religious historians. The best maybe. But that was no more the point than saying Shipps isn’t on the radar of most military historians.

Actually, in an article on the state of RELIGION in current narratives of U.S. history, that is the point. If Schultz and Harvey had been analyzing military historiography, it would have been remiss to ignore MacKinnon’s scholarship.

But as far as actually INTERPRETING LDS history, go take a look. Or is finding new evidence and drawing new conclusion passe?

I have taken a look. I’m familiar with MacKinnon’s schlolarship. That’s why I praised it in my earlier comment.

You sure you want to use Fabrizio as the gold standard? I was surprised to learn Bill hasn’t ever been on RadioWest–I need to work harder to get the KITW authors on, obviously. Shipps has been on three times. But Ken Sanders has been on 27 times.

I’m puzzled as to why juvenile jabs at me are OK but comments are not: I pointed out that Shipps’s serial misinterpretations disqualify her from being “the foremost non-Mormon interpreter of LDS history.” Granted, Jan Shipps may be the sacred cow of religious history, but being on everybody’s Rolodex doesn’t make her a good historian. I’m glad the denizens of this blog are above writing “largely synthetic” history–as in “not natural or genuine; artificial or contrived: counterfeit”–but I fail to see how any historian can avoid trying to synthesize the original sources and latest interpretations–which is what Howe does very well and Shipps does not at all. Plus, I’ve got a soft spot for “Danny Howe,” as Dale Morgan called him, because Morgan thought how, the son of his original patron Maurice Howe, was the brightest prospect he knew in the history business. And whaddaya know: the guy won the Pulitzer.

As for MacKinnon, yes, his work isn’t on the radar of most religious historians. The best maybe. But that was no more the point than saying Shipps isn’t on the radar of most military historians. But as far as actually INTERPRETING LDS history, go take a look. Or is finding new evidence and drawing new conclusion passe?

Will

Will, we get it. You don’t like Shipps. That’s fine; you’re more than entitled to your own opinion of her as a person and her scholarship. Others disagree on both counts, though, and despite the blog’s name, this really isn’t the place for your juvenile jabs at Shipps. The fact remains that she is the foremost non-Mormon interpreter of LDS history by a long shot, if we define “foremost” as “most often cited” and “most often read” non-LDS interpreter of Mormon history. To my knowledge, Howe has not written anything on Mormon history, aside from his excellent, but largely synthetic inclusion of Mormonism in his scholarship (see David’s review of What God Hath Wrought on this point). And while Bill MacKinnon is a fine historian who has made numerous contributions to our collective understanding of Mormon and Utah history, his work isn’t on the radar of most religious historians.

Perhaps you could explain a bit more your take on this?

Will Bagley

Nonetheless, from David’s review of Howe, it looks like it was another big step forward in not just locating Mormonism in the burned-over district and communal movements, but integrating it into a lot of other themes. I think that’s a really big deal.

We should note that non-Mormon scholars have praised Mormons for doing good non-apologetic work since Arrington. Yet I see a trend with the younger scholars. There was a tendency for earlier Mormon scholars to get their degrees then focus pretty solely on Mormonism thus becoming pretty historiographically isolated. It seems to me that this current crop is working hard to get stuff in broader journals and engage in other topics. Last year’s MHA had a broader historiographical focus than I had seen before. Most Mormon scholars aren’t interested in that and that’s okay, but I think it’s good for Mormon scholarship to have a solid group that will be more integrated.

And David, thanks for the heads up on Steve’s work. It’s a great article, and it looks like he’s broken a lot of ground.