I've exchanged emails over the past few days with a Mormon historian whom I shall not name, since he is not particularly fond of this medium and might not like to even be mentioned here, let alone drawn into such a discussion. This active, believing Mormon historian read a paper I had written and indicated to me that he felt the paper was un-academic. He said this because the paper argues at some length against the work of Nibley and briefly comments that apologetic concerns have hindered the progress of historical understanding. This historian felt that an "academic perspective" will ignore or suspend pro/con debates about faith and historicity, will avoid anything polemical, and will focus instead on things like personalities, motivations, and story-telling. I wrote the following in reply:
I don't think I can be satisfied with limiting myself to an entirely 'suspensive' approach, especially since I ultimately want my work to have relevance to popular discourse as well as to academic circles. But I also have tried to leave pro/con debates mostly on the message boards, where they belong. If I have failed to do that here, it is good to have that brought to my attention.
Of course, one cannot always leave questions of historicity aside, especially since they have direct bearing on one's methodology in studying the text and its meaning to the prophet and his scribes. In this respect I think a suspensive approach is impossible (or at least seriously deficient). I can certainly understand and appreciate the view that an "academic" or "scholarly" approach to religious history must be neutral with respect to questions of faith, but it is not a view with which I agree. I am, nevertheless, willing to disagree agreeably and to make the effort to meet folks like yourself halfway wherever possible.
The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this historian is simply wrong. How can one tell stories or evaluate motivations and personalities if one is suspending judgment on issue of faith and historicity? Doesn't the question of whether Joseph was a prophet or a fraud affect our judgment of what the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham were meant to accomplish? Do they not seriously alter the content of the stories we tell about him?
Perhaps more importantly, are historians here to tell stories that only other historians will care about, or to tell stories that are relevant to the general public? Are they here to unearth obscure historical facts that have no connection to present living? Or to unearth historical facts that help us answer big questions about meaning, existence, and what the future holds? Is not the point of story-telling to explore such questions?
I must admit that at first I was a bit offended to be told that my paper was un-academic, especially since it was basically an extended text-critical analysis that wasted no more than a hundred words on anything resembling rhetoric or polemic. I can hardly think of anything more academic. The offense faded as I realized that what this historian was really saying is that he's a firm believer in a particular philosophy of history, and that he thinks that only authors adhering to that philosophy have a legitimate claim to academic publication. As I explained to him in my email, I can sympathize with his view. But it also smacks to me a little too much of political correctness. I don't feel that the most important questions the public faces should be off-limits to those of us who might actually have the tools to address them.
