Making Mormon history - An influential religion struggles with how to tell the story of its past

Boston Globe ^ | December 9, 2007 | Mark Oppenheimer

[Zakeet]

Since its founding in 1830 by Joseph Smith, a young self-proclaimed prophet from upstate New York, the Mormon church has become one of the most influential religious groups in the United States.

[Snip]

Serious analysis of Mormonism has never been more important, but that doesn't mean it will be easy. In Romney's speech on faith last week, for example, the candidate spoke movingly about religious tolerance, and tried to highlight similarities between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity, but he said nothing substantive about Mormon theology or history. Campaigning politicians can't be expected, of course, to discuss the more uncomfortable aspects of religious history, which for the Mormons include a ban on blacks in the priesthood until 1978, and their often contentious relations with what they call their "Gentile" neighbors. It is historians and journalists who are charged with describing unpleasant realities, and how well they accomplish their task will depend in part on which the LDS church decides is more important: guarding its image or uncovering the truth.

[Snip]

In the 1940s and 50s, some Mormon historians became impatient with the piety enforced on them, and they began to publish accounts greatly at odds with the church's preferred versions. The most famous was Fawn Brodie, who in 1945 wrote "No Man Knows My History," a biography of Joseph Smith notable for its skeptical and irreverent attitude toward the founder and his supernatural claims. Her book scandalized the church, and in 1946 she was excommunicated. Brodie was from an influential Mormon family - her uncle would in 1950 become the Mormon prophet-president - and her banishment was a strong statement from the LDS hierarchy that some unspoken lines could not be crossed.

[Zakeet]

We're at a point when many, many Latter-day Saints want to get beneath the veneer,
get a picture that isn't shiny and doesn't have a PR sheen to it ... This renewed openness,
however, still has limits. The Mormon hierarchy is still far more suspicious of historians
than other churches are. Access to documents considered private, sacred, or confidential
is still forbidden or restricted.

This article is a long, interesting read. The summary doesn't do it justice.

[MHGinTN]

Placemarker while I get the popcorn bean dip and chips together with the beverages for the impending rumble.

[skeptoid]

The final sentence is a little cryptic:

"In many ways, Mormons trust the secular world (it has certainly been good to Romney); the question they are asking is whether its scholarship can be trusted, too. "

.....but I'm getting ready to hear new versions of J. Smith 'translating' the BoM from New Egyptian to English with giant spectacles and talking into his hat.

(Mitt's a looker, ain't he?)

[TheDon]

For more information about the church: http://www.mormon.org

[Zakeet]

For more information about the Mormon Church: Mormonism Research Ministry

[SeaHawkFan]

And for those who want the real truth about Mormonism:

exmormons,org

[Old Mountain man]

More hate sites, eh? Believe what you will.

[TheDon]

Soon, however, the church entered a new period of scholarly engagement, with Mormon historians taking greater liberties and non-Mormon historians beginning to take a fresh, less anti-Mormon look at the church, too. Beginning in the 1960s, younger scholars wrote books, rigorous and academic in their approach, that formed the heart of what came to be called the "New Mormon History." As historian Shipps notes, other factors contributed to this opening of the Mormon mind. In 1965, the Mormon History Association was founded, and the next year Dialogue, a new, independent journal of Mormon studies, began publication. The Mormon bureaucracy itself added historical and archival departments, hiring well-trained historians. And new and expanded history departments at church-affiliated schools, like BYU and Iowa's Graceland College, meant new jobs for Mormon historians with secular training.

An interesting read. Let's hope the recent trend continues!

[Zakeet]

More hate sites, eh?

Out of curiosity, what do you find hateful in the Mormonism Research Ministry website?

[TheDon]

LOL! It’s all just a google away! However, I think most people are interested in what the Mormon church has to say about themselves. There are anti-Mormon websites, as there are for other religions, and there are responses from the Mormon apologists, i.e. http://www.ldsfair.org. As with anything, people can read up and decide for themselves.

[Old Mountain man]

I am neither interested in it or in any other anti mormon site. Why do you care so much? Your preacher got his panties in a wad?

[Zakeet]

I am neither interested in it or in any other anti mormon site. Why do you
care so much?

Interesting that you have no factual, substantive criticism of anything on the
Mormonism Research Ministry website. I have yet to meet an LDS member who
did.

With respect to your second question, as a Bible-believing Christian, I fear for the
immortal souls of people who worship false god(s). I love, respect and admire
Mormons, and this drives me to want to see them go from darkness into light.

[Colofornian]

More hate sites, eh? Believe what you will.

(Why do you hate these sites? And doesn't that make you a "hater" by your own terms?)

[humblegunner]

he said nothing substantive about Mormon theology or history.

This cultist must confess to wearing mystical underpants.

[investigateworld]

I for one don't care what style of underwear a candidate wears, or even if they believe in a Divine Creator, which I do.

What's significant to me is whether a candidate supports the Constitution, especially the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, with a strong focus on the Second Amendment of course.

One could even label me an "ABC.." voter, Abortion, Borders and Center fire rifles.

As to Mormons? I've found them to pretty much like other religious groups, a collections of Saints and sinners, with a tad more saints than other groups (7th Day Adventist being the highest).

In my construction biz, I preferred Mormon owned companies as they did what the contract called for on time and in price boundaries. They didn't even have to be the low bidder, it's worth a premium to avoid the aggravation.

But the sleaziest trucking company I know of is owned by Mormons in West Valley Utah. Again, I will not judge the whole group based on C. R. ad -land. So if Mr. Romney wants my vote, he'll focus on my concerns... just like any other candidate...

[Old Mountain man]

WAKE UP!

I didn’t say I hate anything. Don’t go manufacturing words.

[Old Mountain man]

I did. I left the Southern Baptist in the ash heap of my history for good.

[Colofornian]

WAKE UP! I didn’t say I hate anything. Don’t go manufacturing words.

Good. I'm glad to see we're finally on the same page. 'Cause guess what? Those sites you refer to "hate sites" also don't say they hate anything.

Take your own medicine: Don't go manufacturing words about these sites.

(Can you imagine one of your LDS missionary sons whining & complaining about conditions where they are at--in the rare moments they are actually freed up from their 15-hour structured day...but never being specific about what they're complaining about...IOW, if you can't be specific about a concern of your's, it's not a helpful critique...it's just a whine...it's just a generic complaint...If you were somebody's boss, it wouldn't help them to improve if you were never specific on their annual evaluation...)

[Old Mountain man]

ROFLOL

[Alex Murphy]

The Mormon hierarchy is still far more suspicious of historians than other churches are. Access to documents considered private, sacred, or confidential is still forbidden or restricted.

Hoo boy. They don't know the half of it!