I recently attended a lecture by Dr. Richard Bushman on Joseph Smith's golden plates. One point Bushman made that really struck home for me was that the golden plates are the hinge on which the infamous prophet-fraud dichotomy turns. It seems undeniable from the historical record that Joseph Smith had some kind of physical artifact under a cloth that he claimed was a stack of golden plates. This is very difficult for the non-believer in Mormonism to explain except as some kind of "fraudulent" prop or fabrication. The physicality of the golden plates prevents the skeptic from classing Joseph Smith with other sincere-but-mistaken visionaries such as Ellen G. White or Mother Ann Lee. Some more nefarious explanation is required.
During the question and answer session after Richard's talk, I raised my hand and asked what, then, is the way forward for believing and unbelieving scholars who want to study the life and mind of Joseph Smith without making enemies of each other. Are we forever condemned to speak at cross-pruposes and to give each other offense whenever this subject is broached? Richard's response was that the way forward is to treat each other with civility. If we are civil and respectful of each other, then no one will be offended.
This call for civility is a place to start, but does not fully satisfy me. The problem is that I'm not entirely sure what civility means in this case. Does it mean that we disagree without shouting at each other? Does it mean that we express our differences without thinking less of each other? Or is something else required?
A wise man once said, "Some things that are true are not very useful." We might extend this dictum: "Some things that are true are not very civil." We all keep silent about certain things in order to keep the peace with the ones we love. We filter our thoughts constantly: "She looks like she's gained weight." "Man, his wife is looking hot today!" "Their house looks like it hasn't been cleaned in months!" It would be a disaster if everything that crossed our minds came out of our mouths. Sometimes, civility means silence.
And this brings me to the question that has been weighing on my mind of late. Is it really possible for a scholar who disbelieves the claims of Joseph Smith to express his views in a "civil" manner? I certainly think it is possible to argue for the "fraud" thesis in a way that will be inoffensive to some Mormons, but the problem is that scholars don't really get to choose their audiences. Any book or article a scholar produces is bound to be read by at least a few who experience any contradiction of the foundational truths of Mormonism as an attack upon themselves, their families, and their faith. So does civility, in this case, mean silence? I used to think not, but in my old age I'm increasingly beginning to think so. Maybe I'm going soft. I'm interested to hear your thoughts in the comments.
11 comments:
It is a real problem: being able to be factual on one hand and not offending a religious group if you feel the facts are greatly in favor of fraud.
I think at least two things are needed to be civil:
1. I think things need to be said in the nicest possible way. For example, saying:
"Joseph was a womanizing adulterous fraud hell-bent on sleeping with every woman in Nauvoo, married or not"
is the most unkind way of saying: "It is hard for a non-believing person to understand why Joseph felt it was necessary to marry dozens of women, some of whom were already married. He claimed it was by revelation from God but being someone who finds it hard to believe Joseph's prophetic claims, I can't help but wonder if there could have been an alterier motive at play."
2. I think there is wisdom in silence outside peer-reviewed forums. Walking up to an LDS person and saying Joseph is a fraud I think is less mature than first making your case in a peer-reviewed journal where hopefully a good referee has forced you to use constraint where constraint is needed and then directing those with whom you differ to your article.
#2 is one of the main complaints I have against Richard Dawkins who writes books talking about how religion is both wrong and bad for society. On one hand he applauds how much we can trust science because of peer-review and then continues to write a book filled with statements that could have never have gotten through the peer-review process. It is a form of hypocrisy to praise science on one-hand and then attack religion in a very unscientific way.
So, I think there is wisdom in being silent about all statements that cannot and have not survived the peer-review process.
So just to belabor the point: I think if you have a legitimate case against Joseph, and mainstream scholars are equally convinced by how air-tight your case is, and if you can write up your case in a peer-reviewed jornal in the *nicest* possible way... I think that is both mature and civil and LDS scholars should not feel offended if you went about it in this way.
(I should say I think LDS scholars should be held to the same regard. If they have good reasons to believe their critics are wrong and *if* they can make their case in mainstream peer-reviewed journals in the nicest possible way... I would hope that would prevent offense from the other side.)
I completely agree with everything Joseph said. Very good advice, and I love the Dawkins analogy.
I would add that there will certainly be many in the apologist crowd who will be offended, disagree, or even insult you or mock you to maintain their POV. That's to be expected. But those who really want to know, who really want to understand, will give your work the credit it deserves and ideally will have their mind opened to new possibilities. And it is them, I would contend, who are your primary audience.
Incidentally, FWIW, I disagree with Bushman (which I do with a bit of trepidation). I think more of it hinges on the translation process than the physical object. After all, James Strang had plates too that he even showed to people who testified to their authenticity. I don't see LDS scholars clamoring to explain away his plates.
Thanks, guys. I appreciate your thoughts.
jmb, I don't think anyone doubts that Strang's plates were fraudulent. They just get less attention because there aren't many Strangites around anymore. While Joseph Smith's translation process does pose certain problems for the faith, it doesn't necessarily entail fraud like the plates do. Joseph may have been completely sincere about seeing things in the stone. Genuine hallucination is not uncommon among historical seers and visionaries. But the object covered by a sheet does not seem to have been a hallucination. So we're forced to figure out what to do with that.
Joseph,
I don't think I would write up my "case against Joseph" in a straightforward manner, unless maybe I was writing a full-fledged biography. But I find myself straying into potentially damaging info all the time, especially in connection with my BoA research. I've seriously thought about walking away from the BoA stuff because it's just so polarizing. Even aside from the issue of whether people will take offense, I'm not sure it's good for my academic reputation to be involved in such a fray no matter how nice I am about it. Especially since so many of the folks who publish on the BoA are such street fighters.
I have often wondered why Emma was not allowed to see the plates, his own trusted wife. But then Smith kept her in the dark about his other wives.
I hope you keep up the work on the Book of Abraham.I can understand you mind to finish with it. Afterall what more can be said, Wegland seems to think more. My brain gets sizzled just watching the debate on Mormondiscussions with him. What the hell is he talking about?
Ellen G White said God told her the world was created in seven days and that masturbation was wrong. SDAs consider her a prophet, her church has been quiet successful,food production(I eat my weetbix every morning) health care and has a huge school system.Some good has come.
I agree with what you said about Brodie, one does come away with some sympathy for this "pious fraud". In Ronald Numbers bio of Ellen G White, there is a chapter which he coauthors with his wife (a therapist) on the mind of White. They write "the better we get to know and comprehend the ways in which she coped with the cornucopia of mental and physical afflictions, the more emphathic we become and more we admire what she acccomplished" Can we say the same about Smith.
Re Chris
Ah, I see the point now. Perhaps I misunderstood. I guess my point was that just because he had some kind of physical artifact doesn't appear to me to determine whether or not Joseph was a fraud. The case in point is James Strang. As you mentioned, everyone thinks Strang's plates were fraudulent, but he indeed had plates. So the presence of plates doesn't seem to me to establish much. How come it's so easy to dismiss Strang's plates but not Joseph's?
I know your post isn't about this, so I apologize for the tangent. I am very interested in the topic though.
As for BoA, that's really a tough place to be right now. Apologists are fighting tooth and nail to maintain legitimacy.
I think the reason Strang's plates are easier to dismiss is simply that the Strangites mostly failed as a movement. If there were still a lot of them around, there would undoubtedly be a vibrant apologetic industry aimed at arguing for the authenticity of Strang's plates. In fact, there are some scholars who have made arguments to this effect.
I think civility has to do with the setting and the motive. For instance, at an academic conference where the arguments are based on research and evidence, people expect and enjoy the sometimes heated and controversial discussions. This is what scholars do. And I have seen transcripts on the Pew Forum website where Richsrd Bushman said it was important that people stop worrying about being "nice" or "tactful," or silent because then we don't know what the problems or concerns are. At the same time, I am not advocating that people be rude or belittling or disrespectful. This is where motive comes in. I do withdraw from arguments when I sense genuine hostility or an aggressive kind of contention because I have never found them to be productive. But this is another kind of conversation altogether: we lay out the facts as we each perceive them, evaluate them together, share the concerns they raise for us individually, and see what comes of it. I have benefited from this kind of discussion with you this past year at CGU.
Thanks, Liz. I'm glad. :) If you run across those Bushman transcripts again, you should send them to me. I'd love to see them.
Excuse the typos. I am not good at writing on my iPod. I think I can find that link for you.
http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Mormonism-and-Politics-Are-They-Compatible.aspx
It's long. Richard made a comment in passing to Sally Quinn, maybe three-quarters down.
Post a Comment