Saints without Halos
I did it. I couldn’t hold out any longer. Despite my best efforts to wait for Richard Bushman’s new book of essays to get cheaper on Amazon.com, I gave in and bought it. For you unenlightened, Richard Bushman is a professor of American History at Columbia (and also in my ward here in New York). His biography of the first half of Joseph Smith’s life is regarded by Mormons and un-Mormons alike as the best picture of the Prophet around.
A paragraph in this new book (“Believing History”) grabbed me good. In it Bushman writes as follows:
“Virtually everyone who has shown the “human side” of the Church and its leaders has believed the enterprise was strictly human. To defend the faith, Mormon historians have thought they must prove the Church to be inhumanly righteous. We need historians who will mourn the failings of the Saints out of honor for God instead of relishing the warts because they show the Church was earthbound after all.”
I’d love to point my finger and scoff at the naïve folks who can’t take even a small dose of historical reality, but I’m guilty of this too. Any slight criticism of the giant figures in LDS history causes me to cringe a little. I’m open to the “saints without halos” idea in theory, and I’ll almost always agree to out loud, but I do feel a little hurt when people bring up the “warts” of Mormon history. This is probably b/c it’s so often done with the aim to discredit. Personal feelings aside, it sounds like a needed , but difficult, challenge for LDS historians.
What do you guys think? Is Bushman’s ideal Mormon historian possible? For those of you who’ve read Bushman’s biography, do you think he fits the mold?
posted by Chris @ 2/03/2005 03:41:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I hope it is possible. And this question is a teaser for Bushman's biographical tome, entitled (as the internet says all the over the place) Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. (google it for more info; there was an AP article about it by Richard Ostling.) It appears that Bushman has reached that mythical point in scholarship and faith where you don't downplay important but uncomfortable questions, and you don't highlight the embarrassing to cause embarrassment.
Bushman, as I see him, is the kind of man for the job. Beyond reproach, as far as I know, scholastically. Well-respected, and well-published, he has taught at and beyond BYU, and thrived on his scholastic merits. Further, he has been trusted in the priesthood, bishop, stake president, and current stake patriarch (if that hasn't changed recently) in Manhattan--a responsible and faithful position indeed.
I remember Neal Maxwell saying about Nibley that his faith was so sincere and beyond question that the church never had to consider that aspect of his writings (even his LDS critical writings, which many were, and which are published still by FARMS), and we could get to the point of looking at the actual issues he addressed as a saintly scholar.
Posted by Jason
I hope it is possible. And this question is a teaser for Bushman's biographical tome, entitled (as the internet says all the over the place) Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. (google it for more info; there was an AP article about it by Richard Ostling.) It appears that Bushman has reached that mythical point in scholarship and faith where you don't downplay important but uncomfortable questions, and you don't highlight the embarrassing to cause embarrassment.
Bushman, as I see him, is the kind of man for the job. Beyond reproach, as far as I know, scholastically. Well-respected, and well-published, he has taught at and beyond BYU, and thrived on his scholastic merits. Further, he has been trusted in the priesthood, bishop, stake president, and current stake patriarch (if that hasn't changed recently) in Manhattan--a responsible and faithful position indeed.
I remember Neal Maxwell saying about Nibley that his faith was so sincere and beyond question that the church never had to consider that aspect of his writings (even his LDS critical writings, which many were, and which are published still by FARMS), and we could get to the point of looking at the actual issues he addressed as a saintly scholar.
Posted by Jason
I think Jason's comments are apt. On the other hand there will always be critiques. Look at Compton's book on Joseph Smith and his wives. Originally that was shopped to both FARMS and BYU for publishing. FARMS did quite a few critiques. (Most of which focused in on small matters IMO) On the other hand such criticism is the essence of good scholarship. I strongly feel that the back and forth of debate is very important.
Yet I'll also agree that we, as members, are still rather touchy. Perhaps that does represent a bit of insecurity. I suppose all the anti-Mormon materials out there generates that perspective.
I think though even from an apologetic point of view that it would be more helpful not to make figures seem so perfect. It really does end up messing people up who then come to expect it. Yet even the most righteous person is still human and still fallen. Our unrealistic expectations probably cause as much problem as anti-Mormon materials.
Posted by Clark
True about the importantance of criticism and academic responses, Clark. However, IMO, that continual (and continuous) spat between signature books typifying one side and FARMS typifying the other is not the kind of respectful if forceful; opinionated but purely scholarly writing that makes me over-eager to trust either. Hamblin and Quinn love to hate each other in their writings, which makes curiously feel like a juror in a trial of scholarship that I am not hearing all the facts on, and one party is almost as untrustworthy as the next.
It fills me with all kinds of saintly discomfort. That is probably why Bushman is such a relief for me.
Chris, any good ideas/snippets for us from the book? I know it is mostly reprints--I will probably cave for it this summer.
Posted by Jason