Talk:Mormonism and history/Archive 1

message: Is it just me, or is this article just one big piece of original research?--TrustTruth 17:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point—only one reference.  Have any sources we can use to rewrite the article?  The Jade Knight 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic has been discussed in Utah newspapers, BYU & U of U alumni material, and in some short works, beginning in the 1980's and continuing (at intervals) to the present.  I am unaware of any published books or academic works focusing entirely on the subject, but suspect a couple of recent and expected LDS biographies might touch on the subject.  The web will probably have some material.  I do not have anything at hand, but a visit to one of Utah's university libraries should produce some material.  I'll add it to my lengthy "to do" list.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Much appreciated.  The Jade Knight 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added an "unreferenced" tag to the article.  The Jade Knight 07:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: one article, about one controversial biography, added as a reference.  Will continue to look about.  WBardwin 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate the references.  What's the relevance of the Mormon Alliance to this article?  The Jade Knight 05:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my perspective (and my memory), the goals and intentions of the Mormon Alliance in documenting instances of abuse of authority, which sounds straight forward, seemed to actually end up challenging the authority of church leaders.  In 1993, Anderson published a chronology documenting cases of what she regarded as spiritual abuse by LDS church leaders during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. This article became grounds for her excommunication on charges of apostasy in September 1993, as one of the September Six.  Although the LDS church has never had a "Papal infallibility" clause, leaders have never felt comfortable at being called into question and perceive it as disloyal, in this case, heretical.  The case of Anderson, and other scholars who faced discipline at about the same time, actually led to a strong response by church authorities.  They began encouraging the presentation of faith-promoting history (as partially discussed here) rather than any history, which called the actions of leaders into question or presented Church activities in a negative light.  It also led to a shake up in the history departments at LDS Church headquarters and at Brigham Young University.  A number of people with more liberal ideas about history and historic presentation were asked to leave their posts.  Some have since had difficulty accessing church materials and publishing church related work.  The "theme" of faith-promoting history was quickly picked up by local church leaders in many areas and left more liberal scholars and thinkers at a disadvantage.  Fortunately, in the last 6 years or so, the pendulum has started to swing back to a more moderate approach.  President Hinckley's efforts in discussing the history of the Mountain Meadows massacre might be a good example.  Restrictions on access to Church archives have been eased, and more scholarly work is being done.  But, I suspect, questioning LDS church authority and those in authority will always be touchy.  Hopefully, I and other editors familiar with these events can present them more clearly here as time permits.  Does these rambling paragraphs make any sense to you?  WBardwin 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Somewhat; I still feel uncomfortable about its inclusion here (as it is not particularly concerned with Faith-promoting History), but I cannot think of a better place to provide the inter wiki links, so I suppose they should stay.  Anyway, I appreciate the sourcing you've been doing for the article.  The Jade Knight 08:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tucked the wiki articles & references here as I found them, as I suspect we will have a 1) background or development section before 2) explaining the church position and quoting the church authorities and 3) talking about the pros and cons of faith-promoting history.  This will be a difficult article to write in a balanced NPOV -- strong emotions and perspectives on all sides.  And in a sense, I'm in the middle.  I'm active in the LDS church but trained to be a neutral and objective historian.  Such fun.  WBardwin 10:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've a similar training to you then, though LDS History is certainly not my specialty.  Anyway, it can't hurt to find sources for all this, and I appreciate your work on it. Especially some help from Dylan.  The Jade Knight 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading the text, and the improvements to it, but my, albeit poor, initial research indicates that this is not a solely LDS phenomenon - although the phrase "faith-promoting history" may be. Perhaps this would be better merged with a general topic and then presented as an example of it. Then there would be fewer neutrality issues. --Trödel 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am especially not fond of the phrase since there are fewer than 100 references to it on the internet, and nearly all are on blogs and comments on LDS books. When this happens my original research spidey sense starts tingling :) --Trödel 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What The? 

message: I have just done a Google search of this term that I have not heard before.  I notice that critics and opponents of the Mormon Church exclusively use it.  I don't think articles that are cruft like this should exist, but at least this bias should be noted and I will edit to that effect. --Blue Tie 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm a BYU trained historian, actively involved in the Church, and the phrase is common among LDS historians and non-Mormon historians working in Western History.  It is used to contrast the approach to the more traditional methods in history.  The concept, but not the term, has also been applied to Catholic historians over about 150 years.  So, as the Internet tends to house more sensational viewpoints (one of my reservations about internet sources), perhaps the term is not so biased as it may appear to you.  But certainly, we could work toward a more balanced presentation in the article.  As for the September 6 -- primarily the media, as intellectuals, grouped them.  Many of them have published as social scientists or theologians, rather than as historians.  But several of them did have history backgrounds.  I went to school with one of them, had a seminar from another.  As to the reason for excommunication that is private and certainly there would be not published source unless one of the parties talked about the process during an interview.  Appreciate your interest in this obscure article.    WBardwin 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this page; it simply lacks references--which I think can be supplied.  Please give me a couple of days.--John Foxe 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt that you'll like everything that I've done here.  But I'm confident that this essay can no longer be dismissed as "cruft."--John Foxe 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You've made some good points.  Some changes must be made.  But many of your deletions illustrate the phenomenon being discussed in the article. --John Foxe 10:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please. Perhaps you know the off-told tale of Numa-Denis Fustel de Coulanges, who told his enraptured French audience, “It is not I to whom you are listening, it is history itself that speaks.”--John Foxe 12:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Fustel de Coulanges.  So you haven't heard that quotation before. --John Foxe 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV stuff

message: You've misunderstood what I mean by "history religions."  A "history religion" is one in which history makes a difference.  There are numerous examples from Judaism before 70 AD, Christianity ("If Christ be not risen then your faith is in vain") and Mormonism. (If there were no Moroni and no golden plates then Joseph Smith's testimony is a lie).  None of the other major world religions operate like this.  It doesn't make any difference when, or even if, Buddha lived.  Buddhism exists independently of history.--John Foxe 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand better now though I think this term "history religion" is vague.  But, if I get your meaning, Hinduism is a history religion.  You might not recognize it as such because you might consider it "mythology", but isn't that sort of the point?  That the ancient "histories" are not verifiable or even very researchable?  Depending upon which sect of Buddhism you are talking about, the history is important because it is an object lesson.  Islam is definitely a history religion. --Blue Tie 13:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You have made a number of statements of personal opinion that are not sufficient for justification of entry in wikipedia.  You claim Hinduism has no connection with history.  Many Hindu's disagree just as many Christians (I’m not sure about Jews) feel that Genesis is literal history and the earth was made in 6 days. As far as Islam, you could not be more wrong.  The history of Islam is critical.  You should study the reasons for the Hajj.  You should look at the sites that they venerate.  These are historical sites.  I really believe you do not have correct information here. --Blue Tie 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History religions 

message: Paragraph 7 was as follows:The most serious consequences of "faith-promoting history" occur when it downplays or avoids sensitive aspects of the Mormon story. "It is not, for example, politically correct to suggest that Mormons, while victims, were not always innocent victims, or that though holiness may be an affront to the observer, ordinary Saintly holiness was not usually the cause of Mormon persecution." As Quinn has written, "Traditional Mormon apologists discuss such 'sensitive evidence' only when this evidence is so well known that ignoring it is almost impossible."It opens with the phrase: "The most serious consequences...".  Yet, throughout the paragraph there is not one single description, indication or review of a "consequence".  The word is simply stuck into the paragraph without justification.  Furthermore, these unspoken consequences are considered ... by wikipedia evidently ... to be "the most serious".  This is contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:RS.  Specifically it is contrary to the instruction: "do not assert opinions".  The next sentence again, "asserts an opinion".  Although it is in quotes and the source is in footnotes, I do not believe that meets the guidelines of wikipedia.  I would like to change it to "So and so says: ________" but I do not have the source and the citation does not give sufficient detail to do it confidently. 
Paragraph 8 was as follows:The recent response of Church leaders to the writing of scholarly history by LDS members has been mixed. Grant H. Palmer, who wrote the openly critical An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, was disfellowshipped in 2004. On the other hand, the biography of respected historian Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling was much more even-handed, and it achieved a greater level of acceptance within the Church--even being sold in the BYU campus store, for instance. In Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman rarely attempts to conceal the more controversial aspects of Joseph Smith's character, but he does try to ameliorate their impact on believing readers while still tipping his hat to historical objectivity. In his essay "The Balancing Act: A Mormon historian reflects on his biography of Joseph Smith," Bushman noted that one reviewer had written of his "walking a high wire between the demands of church conformity and the necessary openness of scholarly investigation." Bushman argued that one did not have to be objective to write history.  Again, assertions of opinion in this paragraph.  Palmer's work is "openly critical" ... in wikipedia's OPINION.  Yet wikipedia is not supposed to have opinions.  Who else says it is openly critical?  Palmer?  The Mormons?  Quote them saying so.  In the opinion of wikipedia (which is not supposed to have opinions), Richard bushman is "respected".  The book he wrote was "more" even handed, maybe so.  Who else said so besides wikipedia?  Apparently "it achieved a greater level of acceptance within the Church--even being sold in the BYU campus store".  Was the other book not sold in the BYU campus bookstore? (I did not say, "is" because its possible it was never popular.... I have not looked it up).  When we say it achieved a greater level of acceptance, is this wikipedia's opinion or is it a fact?  It says Bushman "rarely" attempts to conceal.  But does he sometimes attempt to conceal?  This is a living person.  Care must be taken not to slander or insinuate things.  What he is attempting to conceal are "more controversial" aspects of Joseph Smith's "character".  Should that be "character" or should it be "history"?  What is it that he actually only attempts to conceal on rare instances?  If it is "character" how does he conceal that?  What constitutes the authority that declares some things "more controversial" and other things "less controversial"?  Also, in the opinion of wikipedia he 'tips the hat" to historical objectivity.  Does he really?  Doesn't the quote below actually say that there is no such thing as objective history?  Sounds like he does not tip the hat there. --Blue Tie 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a mess and should have been deleted or merged into Controversies and the LDS church. Agree with the comments below - many statements only Mormons would understand, and many loaded words are used. I've added fact checks throughout the article. Palmer's book was also sold at BYU and Deseret Book until about two years ago - so that is a lame statement and completely irrelevant, unless pushing a POV. -Visorstuff 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraphs #7 & #8 Issues

message: Should this article be merged with Mormon apologetics? The two articles seem to be germane to one another, and I'm not sure that faith-promoting history is the most NPOV way to describe the issue. Who says, for example, that this type of history is in fact "faith promoting"? COGDEN 10:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this merge - as I have been unsure how to proceed on this article. --Trödel 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "Mormonism and History" as a new title?  This larger article could cover Mormon interest in frontier diaries, the simultaneous creation of the church and the Church Historian, early LDS purchase of historic sites like Carthage jail, the handcart recreations, Mormon documentaries and glossy picture books, and the outdoor pageants as recruiting tools.  It would also cover Mormon suspicion of academic history, the attempt to limit knowledge of Mormon history among the faithful, the founding of Mormon historical periodicals, a tip of the hat to Mark Hofmann, Camelot under Leonard J. Arrington, the "New Mormon History,” as well as everything else that's already in the article. As a religion, Mormonism has a unique relationship with history that deserves a separate article. --John Foxe 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should be careful about our use of the X (Mormonism), X (Latter Day Saints) Mormonism and X, etc naming convention when the issue is primarily or (nearly entirely) one involving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like I think this one is. When we do so, it complicates matters unnecessarily, as some of the smaller denominations do not have a theology (or, in some cases, there are claims of a theology but that theology is not verifiable from reliable sources). This is one of the main problems with the articles on Mormonism - it is very confusing to someone who doesn't know or want to learn about all the different denominations and their relationships. --Trödel 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe I'm missing something here.  Why are "Mormon apologetics" and "Mormon hagiography" acceptable terms but "Mormonism and History" is not? --John Foxe 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to give that impression - I think the problem needs to be addressed for articles named that way too; however, they have been named that way for some time - so I feel overwhelmed in addressing them. Mormon apologetics, at least on the surface, can include the apologetics of other denominations, like Church of Christ and FLDS, which have verifiable apologetic writing. If you mean to include a broader subject than the claim of "faith promoting" history, then I would be equally overwhelmed ;) --Trödel 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Historiography" is the principles, methodology, or history of writing history.  An excellent historiography of Mormonism is Walker, Whittaker, and Allen, Mormon History (2001). Mormonism's relationship to history is something other. (And if those guys can call Mormonism "Mormonism," why can't we?) --John Foxe 11:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, those things but also those I mentioned above, "interest in frontier diaries, the simultaneous creation of the church and the Church Historian, early LDS purchase of historic sites like Carthage jail, the handcart recreations, Mormon documentaries and glossy picture books, and the outdoor pageants as recruiting tools"--combined with Mormon need to control the acceptable past because the faith is so intimately tied to history.  As I implied in the article, there's really nothing like the Mormon relationship to history in any other religion. I think it's unique.--John Foxe 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CJC version of early Mormon history is much more realistic than any current Catholic history on the early fathers. I think there is plenty to compare it to - and most not favorably. --Trödel 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That only points up the difference in the way the Catholic Church relates to history. For instance, the church doesn't sponsor reenactments of the Council of Nicaea, and the Immaculate Conception could be declared dogma more than 1850 years after Mary's birth with not even a nod toward historicity. I'm not referring to accuracy, realism, or reliability but rather Mormonism's intimate love-hate relationship with history. As I said above, I think it's unique--nothing like it anywhere in the religious world. --John Foxe 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean - agree - Histiography would be a good place to cover this. I would go with  COGDEN's proposal of Historiography of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --Trödel 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our love-hate relationship probably has something to do with family history as well.  So many of us come from a long line of members, and often have access to journals and materials from the early Church and pioneer periods.  So, perhaps, we see ourselves reflected in any church history presentation.  I would vote "Yes" for a merge into a historiography article.  This sounds like the beginning of a great article!  I would be happy to help, if time permits if and when the real world settles down for me. Best to all.  WBardwin 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I respect your opinions, gentlemen, but I'm still not thrilled about the proposed title.  It sounds stuffy, and it's too exclusive. Ask folks in your ward or workplace what "Historiography of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" means.  Most will be clueless. The most knowledgeable will understand it as a kind of a summary of Walker, Whittaker, and Allen, Mormon History. Nothing wrong with that (though it's not what I had in mind), but why not at least call it "Mormon Historiography" and cover all the groups.--John Foxe 15:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the three article ideas - we open a can of worms if we get into what historical "revisions" reasons why, if the church is "open" with its archives, etc. I like your  outline above starting with early historical revisionism by Smith and ending with New Apologetic history (And believe we should add in a "Nibley-ism history" somewhere. But think it belongs within the Mormon Apologetics article as a sub-section. OR as a sub-section of Mormon History. OR as a part of a new article titled of Mormon studies. -Visorstuff 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with ''Mormon apologetics''? 

message: As I put my hand to the task of improving this article, I noticed that it has very poorly defined structure. I would appreciate any contributions, which addressed this shortcoming.  I notice there have been several suggestions made on this page, but none have been incorporated as yet. ErinHowarth 12:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of structure 

message: After reading the re-structured article, I realized that the following text has nothing to do with the topic "Faith Promoting History".  Instead these are discussions of historians that do NOT engage in "Faith Promoting History".  It's like giving a list of popes when discussing atheists. Makes no sense. --Blue Tie 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appriciate that my contributions were moved here instead of deleted outright.  I believ they will need to be worked by in somehow.  Although they are not examples of historians being censured for failing to write faith-promoting history; therefore they serve to illustrated the great importance which the Brethern place on this sort of thing. ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to talk page

message: ::I appriciate that my contributions were moved here instead of deleted outright.  I believ they will need to be worked by in somehow.  Although they are not examples of historians being censured for failing to write faith-promoting history; therefore they serve to illustrated the great importance which the Brethern place on this sort of thing. ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: 1.  This article looks like cruft to me.  (I have said this before, but it was objected to)
:::I know that you have said this before, but I still don't know what it means. ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this issue affects others faiths in other ways.  For example, evangelical Christians try to re-write parts of pre-history in order to reconcile the creation sotry found in Genesis.  I think it would be approprate to include links to such pages, but a single page could not adequately discuss all the issues faced by all faiths, and there are precious few contributors who would know enough about all the faiths to create a balanced article.ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which quote is the "first quote." ErinHowarth 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Problems with this article

message: A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal.  Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major restructuring proposal in a related article 

message: I'd like some clarification on this sentence, found in the beginning of the section after the "Mormons Remember" section:
"Mormon high school and college students take required church history courses as part of their training."
Is this referring to Seminary and Institute classes?  If it is, that kind of training is hardly required, and the statement is inaccurate.  Both are quite optional.  That said, at the church owned institutions (the BYUs, LDS Business College, etc) part of the required curriculum is a series of religious classes.  In that sense, the statement is correct, but it explicitly should reflect that.  Otherwise, the sentence is misleading as it implies that all Mormon students must take religious courses, even at other, secular schools, which is simply not true.  Just a thought.  Cheers! SinisterMatt (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I hope I've eliminated the confusion by quoting the Ostlings.--John Foxe (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on this sentence? 

message: The image :Image:Lds legacy.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Lds legacy.jpg