Goblins and ghouls

[_azzolina]

What are some of the best books/articles on the first vision?

[_nc47]

So how does one define 'respectable'?

Certainly Snow would not want members reading Bagley's Blood of the Prophets and yet he is a "recognized and respected historian".

Would the Tanners, Mike Quinn, Dan Vogel and so on, make the list of respected historians?

There is a lot of irony in an accountant called as a Church Historian telling people to read respectable and recognized historians?

I just wanted to say one more thing. Not all respectable scholars on Mormonism are positive, like you said. But if everyone read only respectable historians, then the Church would be better off than in the current state, where people are swallowing a lot of trailer trash from the internet.

[_Fence Sitter]

I just wanted to say one more thing. Not all respectable scholars on Mormonism are positive, like you said. But if everyone read only respectable historians, then the Church would be better off than in the current state, where people are swallowing a lot of trailer trash from the internet.

True, but I have found that a lot of the trailer trash information on the internet turned out to be backed up by the respectable scholars.

In the Church I grew up in, Fawn Brodie would have been/was considered trailer trash. Funny how so much of what she said turned out to be used by future respectable generations of Mormon scholars.

Therein lies the whole issue with what Snow said. What does he mean by respectable? Is he really encouraging members to get works by Quinn, Vogel, Marquardt and so on? Books that qualify as respectable. I doubt it.

If they had let Arrington do what he was trying to do this wouldn't even be a conversation today .

[_nc47]

I just wanted to say one more thing. Not all respectable scholars on Mormonism are positive, like you said. But if everyone read only respectable historians, then the Church would be better off than in the current state, where people are swallowing a lot of trailer trash from the internet.

True, but I have found that a lot of the trailer trash information on the internet turned out to be backed up by the respectable scholars.

In the Church I grew up in, Fawn Brodie would have been/was considered trailer trash. Funny how so much of what she said turned out to be used by future respectable generations of Mormon scholars.

Therein lies the whole issue with what Snow said. What does he mean by respectable? Is he really encouraging members to get works by Quinn, Vogel, Marquardt and so on? Books that qualify as respectable. I doubt it.

If they had let Arrington do what he was trying to do this wouldn't even be a conversation today .

Brodie's biography was the definitive one only because there was none better until RSR came along. And it isn't completely faith-destroying either, unless you accept her inferences and her imagination about what dead people are thinking. Her reputation was destroyed when she butchered Thomas Jefferson.

Vogel and Quinn are nice (I don't know anything about Marquardt) but they have not published anything peer-reviewed. Deseret and Signature don't really count. They are dwarfed by Bushman, Turner, Givens, Shipps, and others whose works are in the most reputable venues around. For this reason the Church will gain from a movement towards better quality sources.

[_SignatureJohn]

Ben Park recently posted a list of the best studies of Mormonism. Although not strictly books on LDS history, most of them do focus on the past in one way or another.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/09/w ... ld-i-read/

As others have pointed out, this is a broad question. Presumably the average Joe isn't as interested in documentary history or really narrow monographs. The five-volume Early Mormon Documents series, for example, are outstanding, but there's half-a-dozen good narrative histories on early Mormonism that are half the size of just one of those volumes. I would also caution about focusing just on books written by PhDs and published by university presses. Until the last decade or two, University of Illinois, Signature Books (if I do say so myself), and yes, even Deseret Book, were pretty much it for serious studies of Mormon history.

Only in the last 10-15 years have other presses got on board. Perhaps in another twenty years, enough serious scholars of Mormonism will have emerged to limit oneself to just PhDs, but that day is not here yet. Furthermore, I've heard some of these emerging PhDers speak or read their work; many of them are excellent, but some sound as if they're trying too hard to be as academic as possible, complete with lingo and a "look at how I can take the narrowest of topics and expand it to explain everything about Mormonism!" attitude. Kathleen Flake, Phil Barlow, and Paul Reeve, among others, remain true to academic principles without sounding like they spend all their time in graduate level classes.

I'd also disagree that Vogel and Quinn are "nice" but are "dwarfed" by Bushman and others. Bushman has acknowledged that Dan Vogel probably knows more about early Mormonism than any other human alive. I value academic training a great deal, and I'm glad university presses are taking Mormonism more seriously, but judging based solely on those requirements seems awfully silly. Are we going to discard Elder Statesman until some university press decides to publish a book on J. Reuben Clark and 20th century Mormonism? What has Jan Shipps, important as her contributions are, done that "dwarfs" D. Michael Quinn's work?

Another note: Twentieth century studies of Mormonism are abysmally lacking. The Joseph Smith era has hundreds, perhaps thousands of titles, a few dozen that are really good. I can probably count on one hand the number of twentieth century studies I think are worth reading.

Here's a list I'd offer. Keep in mind I tend to favor naturalistic approaches to Mormon history and I have less interest in theology and scripture studies (i.e., where'd the Book of Mormon come from):

General History/Biography:

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman
Mormon Enigma by Linda King Newell and Valeen Avery
Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet by John Turner
Mormonism in Transition by Thomas Alexander
David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory Prince
Mormon Hierarchy Vols 1-2 by D. Michael Quinn
Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball by Edward Kimball
The Angel and the Beehive by Armand Mauss
Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler
The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth Century America by Sarah Barringer Gordon
Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, A Mormon Prophet by Thomas Alexander

Topical/Narrower History:

Polygamy - Nauvoo Polygamy by George Smith and More Wives than One by Kathryn Daynes and Solemn Covenant by Carmon Hardy
Women's Issues - Pedestals and Podiums by Martha Bradley and Mormon Sisters: Women in Early Utah edited by Claudia Bushman
Mountain Meadows - Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Walker, Turley, and Leonard and Blood of the Prophets by Will Bagley
Mormon Identity - The Politics of American Religious Identity by Kathleen Flake
Race - All Abraham's Children by Armand Mauss and Paul Reeve's forthcoming Oxford volume (it may be odd to recommend a book that isn't out yet, but I've heard Paul speak on this and he's absolutely fantastic, the first person to really explain how race was understood in the past and how Mormonism fits into it)

This is all from memory, so I'm sure there's a dozen other titles I'll be astounded I didn't think of that deserve to be on this list. There's really some good work being done, and there's a lot of titles I personally love that I've left off just because they are narrower in focus (Gary Bergera's Conflict in the Quorum, for example, or Devery Anderson's Temple documentary histories) than these broader histories.

[_nc47]

No I disagree, the day has already come. Oxford is publishing stuff on Mormonism left and right.

[_SignatureJohn]

No I disagree, the day has already come. Oxford is publishing stuff on Mormonism left and right.

They are, and I'm grateful for that. But isn't the proof in the content and writing of the books? Why assume that something written by a PhD and published by a university press is superior to something that's not?

It strikes me as a very black and white, overly simplistic view that's essentially one giant appeal to authority fallacy. Oxford does some excellent stuff. It's also done some less-than-excellent stuff. The review of Givens and Grow's Parley P. Pratt biography in the Journal of American History (itself a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal) excoriated the press for essentially becoming a Mormon vanity press. I think that's an overstatement by the reviewer, but it does reflect a growing concern I've heard in Mormon studies circles that Oxford is not always publishing high-quality books.

So here's some questions then, based on this view that academic university presses publishing work by those with PhDs is superior:

Where's the great women's studies from these peer reviewed, academic presses? 4 Zinas, Pedestals and Podiums, Women and Authority, and Mormon Enigma were published by Signature and Doubleday. Only Mormon Sisters was published by a university press, and that was Utah State University, not an Ivy league school.

A quick review of the Mormon History Association's book awards for the past decade shows a diverse selection across publishers that include Ivy league university publishers, Utah-based university publishers, and non-university presses that include Signature Books, Deseret Book, Greg Kofford Books, and BYU Press. Sub-question: Does BYU Press count or would we assume that a church-owned university has too much self-interest to publish academic work?

Where are the amazing documentary histories from these presses? What about the Early Mormon documents series, the Significant Diary series, and the Joseph Smith Papers project? Do we just hang onto these things until a university press does it?

Is the Kingdom in the West series only good for those volumes published after the Arthur H. Clark company was acquired by U of Oklahoma Press?

Rough Stone Rolling was published by Knopf - did they engage peer reviewers? Would the book be better if it had been published by Oxford?

Two books published by university presses on the Mountain Meadows Massacre reach radically different conclusions - which one do we rely on?

I'll rephrase a previous question: Since Quinn, for example, is dwarfed by Bushman, Turner, Givens, and Shipps, which of their works replace his studies on the Mormon hierarchy, the role of occult in early Mormonism, and J. Reuben Clark?

[_nc47]

Of course not everything that is peer-reivewed is good, everything not peer-reviewed bad. But In every research methodology class, students are taught that peer-review is the highest standard, university presses are gold standard for book-length treatments. Prestigious universities, man, that stuff is irresistible. It's a rule of thumb, your contradictory evidence notwithstanding. I'd rather go with what I learned in class than with some guy on the internet plugging the company writing his paycheck.

BYU Press is downright incestual. The only times I read it are 1) If there are non-LDS contributors, 2) If it concerns an internal dispute among Mormon scholars, 3) If non-LDS scholars have written a response or cited it. Without at least one of the three, the controls are not strong enough.

The only reason Bushman published RSR through Knopf is because he wanted to reach a popular audience with his inoculation efforts. Same with Givens's God Who Weeps.

My field is math, so I really don't really care what what the MHA has to say. Mormon studies is my hobby. If it's important enough, non-Mormons will turn heads.

Where are the amazing documentary histories from these presses? What about the Early Mormon documents series, the Significant Diary series, and the Joseph Smith Papers project? Do we just hang onto these things until a university press does it?

Columbia Press is producing a Mormon studies sourcebook. Hand on to your stuff until some university press book or some peer-reviewed journal article cites it. Hang tight.

Bushman is emeritus at Columbia, Givens chair at URichmond, Hardy Chair at UNCA, Shipps teaches at IU, Turner will probably be Bushman chair at UVA. Where is Quinn tenured at again?

I am Facebook friends with Vogel and I know that he doesn't like formal education. His assumptions and methodology are off-the-wall.

Two books published by university presses on the Mountain Meadows Massacre reach radically different conclusions - which one do we rely on?

Is this a serious question???

[_nc47]

I think especially needy of peer-review is Mormon apologetics. Thus far, only Hugh Nibley (early Christianity), David Paulsen (Mormon theism), Givens (Book of Mormon), and David Bokovoy (Divine council/Old Testament Studies) have published in peer-review venues.

[_SignatureJohn]

Even though I may be coming across as defensive or "plugging my press," that's not the case. Promise. There's things Signature has published I have little interest in, and a few titles over the years I don't think are our best work.

Your jab at Quinn only proves my point: You haven't actually addressed the quality of his work vs. the quality of the other people you mention. Instead you dismiss it because he's apparently not currently tenured anywhere. Nor do you actually address whether or not Jan Shipps, John Turner, et al somehow make up for Quinn's work (Hint: they don't). I have the utmost respect for Shipps, Turner, Bushman, and Givens and their contributions and look forward to more. But none of them have written extensively on the role of occult in early Mormonism, nor have they examined the role and development of the Mormon hierarchy, especially in the 20th century. If you have beef with Quinn's work, that's cool. But for someone so concerned with academic training and methodology, your argument is an obvious fallacy to anyone who's taken Logic 101. It's the equivalent of saying only movies from certain directors released by certain studios are really reliable, so why bother seeing anything else.

I've just moved in Mormon publishing circles too long to not see how overly simplistic the notion that books that come from university presses and are authored by PhDs "dwarf" books that don't meet those standards. It may be a decent guideline, but Mormon studies is still too academically new to rely on it in any kind of systematic way. A glance at the author's bio and a glance at the publishers name on the spine is a silly way to assess the quality of a book. Indeed, I'm a bit reminded of an old saying...something about judging and covers....

I'll reiterate: If we rely on your standards of publishing, here's what we toss out, or at least view skeptically:

The best biography and work on Joseph Smith
The best biography of Emma Smith
Most of the best work on early Mormonism
Almost every documentary history of Mormonism (including the Joseph Smith papers)
Most of the work on Utah and the Mormons in the west
Just about all women's studies
Almost all work on Wilford Woodruff
Dozens, if not hundreds, of other invaluable studies.

Perhaps because Mormon studies is your hobby, you have the luxury of being so dismissive of dozens (or, again, hundreds) of important studies in Mormonism. But those of us who take it seriously know better, and know that really fantastic work can and does come from a variety of authors and publishers.

I've made my point. You're welcome to the last word.