|
|
 |
Author's Preface, About Mormon History
An Example of Biased Histories
The Quote
One Nation under Gods, page xv-xvi
English professor John E. Hallwas of Western Illinois University and historian Roger D.
Launius agree with Quinn and Roberts, adding that "Mormon Scholars too often write history that,
if not blatantly, at least tacitly defends the faith." They further observe:
Their work might be of a scholarly nature, but it strives to reinforce traditional Mormon conceptions
about the church rather than to comprehend the full complexity of the past....These historians do not
mention Mormon intimidation, deception, repression, theft, and violence, or any other matters that
might call into question the sacred nature of the Mormon experience....[T]hey do not make any attempt
to portray dissenters or non-Mormon critics of the church as anything but miscreants and troublemakers
motivated by religious bigotry.6
The Reference
Endnote 6, page 477
6. John E. Hallwas and Roger D. Launius, Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the
Mormon War in Illinois (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1995), 2-3. [The balance of endnote
is a laundry list of additional sources critical of the way history is treated by faithful
LDS. It is deleted here, as it is not directly related to the use of the quote in question.]
The Problems
The foundational argument presented by Abanes is that "Mormons don't tell their history
correctly." (He sees his book as a way to help correct that deficiency.) He quotes, in this instance,
from a source that is critical of some histories done in the past, but he misapplies it to the point
he is trying to make. Abanes does this by removing the quote from the context to which it applies, and
then applies it to a larger context. This particular quote, which will be provided in full in a moment,
was written in the Introduction to Cultures in Conflict, where the authors indicate why they
felt the need to write their book. Their comments apply solely and singularly to an analysis of two
previous histories of the Nauvoo era.
In other words, they wrote their comment as application for two particular books about
a limited portion of LDS history (the Nauvoo period), but Abanes--by pulling the quote from its original
context--applies it to all LDS history writing, covering all periods of LDS history.
Additionally, Abanes is rather loose with his application of ellipses in this particular
quote. The following is the entire passage from which Abanes pulled his quote. The text highlighted in
red indicates the words he pulled from the text to synthesize his quote.
Much Mormon scholarship on the Nauvoo era is essentially sacred history. If not overtly mythic--as Mormon
historical writing once was under such scholars as B.H. Roberts--it too often reduces the actual complexity
of events, avoids matters that challenge or contradict Mormon myth, views the Mormons as good and their
opponents as evil, and ignores the cultural context of the early church. Hence, Mormon
scholars too often write history that, if not blatantly, at least tacitly defends the faith. Their work
might be of a scholarly nature, but it strives to reinforce traditional Mormon conceptions
about the church rather than to comprehend the full complexity of the past.
This is exemplified in the discussions of the Nauvoo experience contained in the two leading modern
histories of the church: The Story of the Latter-day Saints by James B. Allen and Glen M.
Leonard, and The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints by Leonard J. Arrington
and Davis Bitton. Allen and Leonard provide only brief comments about religion in the United States at
the time and otherwise ignore the ideals and values of non-Mormon America, so there is virtually no cultural
context for understanding the Mormon conflict in Illinois. Also, they treat the Mormons as idealized figures
whose motives are sacred. No action by Smith is ever truly questioned, and no criticism of Smith leveled by
others is examined on its merits. For example, the dissenters who founded the Nauvoo Expositor to
protest theocratic authoritarianism, the secret practice of polygamy, and other intrusions of the church
into secular affairs are dismissed as "a disgruntled cabal" that "plotted dissention" with no other
explanation offered for their actions, when other reasons are readily apparent. The reader is forced to
conclude that they must have been evil men bent on the destruction of the church when such was never the
case. In contrast, the good "city fathers," in destroying the newspaper established by the dissidents,
are not depicted as violating freedom of the press--much less any other constitutional right--and Smith
himself is not viewed as the instigator of that action, despite his complete and unquestioned control of
the community. Mormon innocence is thereby sustained by the authors, both professionally trained historians
who apparently chose not to move beyond the faith story and ask other legitimate questions.
Even Arrington and Bitton, an exceptionally capable and fair pair of historians, fail to explore seriously
the Mormon conflict in Illinois. While they do a somewhat better job than Allen and Leonard in relating the
church to its American cultural context--although they omit such pertinent intellectual currents as
American millennialism and theories about the origin of the prehistoric mound builders--they still do not
investigate seriously the causes of the conflict between early Mormons and their neighbors. Instead they
see it as essentially a matter of religious persecution (one of their chapters is even entitled "Early
Persecutions"). And Smith is idealized as a sensitive, magnanimous, just, loving, and sincere man, while
his critics are portrayed as misinformed and ill motivated. The Mormon dissidents who established the
Expositor, for instance, are dismissed as "libelers" who simply published "inflammatory allegations
about the sex lives of Mormon leaders and members." The dissenters' actual motive--to reform the church--and
their well-informed critique of Smith's leadership are never seriously considered. Once again, the
destruction of their newspaper is not viewed as a violation of freedom of the press and due process of law.
Furthermore, when focusing on developments after the death of the prophet, Arrington and Bitton cover the
complex events of the exodus with a simplistic commentary. The "Mormons united under Young's leadership and,
under the duress of continuing persecutions, reached westward for the long-sought dream of a Kingdom of God
on earth." They were forced to leave Nauvoo only when "persecution began again in the fall of 1844, when
Mormon homes in Illinois were subjected to 'wolf hunts'--freewheeling raids." These
historians do not mention Mormon intimidation, deception, repression, theft, and violence, or any other
matters that might call into question the sacred nature of the Mormon experience. Similarly,
they do not make any attempt to portray dissenters or non-Mormon critics of the
church as anything but miscreants and troublemakers motivated by religious bigotry.
In case you are not inclined to count words, the first ellipsis used by Abanes blithely
skips over 548 words. In these words Hallwas and Launius essentially critique two history books, explaining why
they feel that the books don't do justice to the complexity of the Nauvoo period. Abanes, on the other hand,
applies the authors' evaluation of these books to the much larger field of LDS histories as a whole. He is
guilty, in other words, of generalization and stereotyping in the use of this quote.
Notice that Hallwas and Launius start by discussing a single subset of Mormon scholars--those
who write history about Nauvoo. They then narrow their comments even further, discussing the published works
of two pairs of LDS scholars. Abanes, on the other hand, pulls the quote out of context and applies it to
all LDS scholars. Hallwas and Launius use "their work" to apply to scholars who write history about Nauvoo.
Later their use of the words "these historians" and "they" is used to refer to specifically the work of
Arrington and Bitton. You would never know this, however, by the way Abanes crafts his selection from the
original text. By the selective use of the authors' original words, "their work," "these historians," and
"they" are applied to all LDS historians, and more broadly to the LDS Church, which
must somehow control them. Such use by Abanes is deceitful and intellectually dishonest.
It is interesting to note that regardless of the generally negative critique leveled by
Hallwas and Launius, they also admit that "much Mormon scholarship on the Nauvoo era is essentially sacred
history." In other words, histories written for a specific audience that views the events of the period
as essentially sacred events. Abanes, of course, sees no sacredness in the history at all, so he removes
the reference to the type of histories being written about Nauvoo, and quotes Hallwas and Launius as saying
that all LDS histories are biased and therefore corrupt. Is one to assume that since the story of the
trial and crucifixion of Jesus is similarly a sacred history, that it should be just as easily dismissed
because it is biased and therefore corrupt?
The fact is, histories are written to interpret past events for a present audience. That
interpretation is only effective if it takes into account the needs of the audience for which it is
written. In that regard, sacred histories--including LDS sacred histories--fulfill a very valuable
need in any community. In the case of the LDS, however, Abanes would have us consider such histories
as the product of conspiratorial efforts at control and domination.
What Abanes won't tell you is that anyone is free to write any history of the LDS they
want--as many have--and the Church will not stand in their way. Such freedom on the part of individuals
does not reduce the freedom of the Church, as the Church is not required to
allow such writers to ply their craft from within its membership. Just as the writer has control over
what they write, the Church has control over who it allows to remain members in good standing. Besides
One Nation under Gods, Abanes has also written a book on the evil present within the Harry
Potter stories. Had Abanes been a member of the offical Harry Potter fan club before writing that
book, could he reasonably expect to remain a member in good standing after its publication?
To expect the Church to facilitate the writing of all histories and cooperate in
their preparation in the name of scholarship--without regard to the value and quality of that
scholarship--is unreasonable in the extreme. Would Abanes willingly help writers "dig up"
dirt on his early years or on his indiscretions, whatever they may be? How about if someone is
writing a history that tries to represent Abanes as a willful lawbreaker who disdains authority
and is complicit in the crimes of others? Would Abanes participate in providing information for
such a history, regardless of how unfair or unethical Abanes might feel that history is? Yet this
is what he seems to demand of the LDS Church. Such willing application of a double-standard does
not speak well for Abanes' scholarly integrity, journalistic ethics, or personal agenda.
Written by Allen L. Wyatt
Back to the Index
|
