"Presentism" is Dealt a Staggering Blow

[_Mister Scratch]

I have for quite some time disapproved of the use, by apologists such as Pahoran and Nighthawke, of the theory (developed for historians) of "presentism" as a means crafting spin-jobs about Joseph Smith and other LDS blunders. Anyhow, a poster called "Loquacious Lurker" has really hit the nail on the head over on the fittingly named MADboard:

Hi. On another thread, thesometimesaint helpfully defined "presentism" thusly:

QUOTE("thesometimesaint")
presentism noun. The application of current ideals, morals, and standards to historical figures and events.

Example Citation:
"In the midst of this millennial miasma, another word has come along to stir up historians: presentism. 'It's when a historian sees events in the past through the prism of present-day standards,' the lawyer-historian [Annette Gordon-Reed] tells me. 'For example, Thomas Jefferson is often judged harshly as a sexist even though the notion of complete equality between the sexes was almost unthinkable in his era.' Gordon-Reed calls it the 'why wasn't Jefferson like Alan Alda' question."
—William Safire, "Hair-Raising Fund-Raising," The New York Times Magazine


To my mind, this is closely allied to the concept of "ethnocentrism" -- judging another culture by the standards of your own.

So, I am guilty of presentism, if I recoil in horror from the concept of Joseph Smith taking a fourteen-year-old girl as his wife. Were I to live in the 1830s, this would not have affected me in such a way. It would be a matter of course, a matter of commonplace behavior. To my 2007 eyes, however, a child of fourteen seems much too young to be looked upon as a wife. But that would be presentism.

My question is, if this is so, can we not look at any historical event that we do not approve of and pass judgement upon, as a case of presentism? If I look askance at Attila the Hun's tactics, am I really just guilty of presentism? In his day and age, sacking and pillaging was simply how things were accomplished. And Nero? Caligula? Pol Pot? Stalin? Mao?

I don't understand where the line is drawn. It seems that if you argue for presentism, there is no moral absolute, no good or bad, only what is relative to that culture, at that time.

A superb deconstruction of this term as it is used by Mopologists, in my opinion. Really, it seems to me that "presentism" was developed by historians as a means to achieving greater scholarly objectivity, whereas Mopologists want to apply it to morality. I think there is a very big difference indeed between applying "presentism" within the context of an academic paper on biblical polygamy, vs. applying it to early nineteenth century moral attitudes. In any case, I think that "Loquacious Lurker" is quite right when s/he says that when used by Mopologists, "presentism" is just a sneaky, barely veiled form of Moral Relativism, which most apologists would normally abhor.

Regardless, my compliments to LL.

[_Fortigurn]

A very good analysis. Of course there's the other problem with 'Presentism', and that includes finding anyone in the early 19th century who would approve of a grown man having sex with other men's wives, and with girls as young as 14.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I have for quite some time disapproved of the use, by apologists such as Pahoran and Nighthawke, of the theory (developed for historians) of "presentism" as a means crafting spin-jobs about Joseph Smith and other LDS blunders. Anyhow, a poster called "Loquacious Lurker" has really hit the nail on the head over on the fittingly named MADboard:

Hi. On another thread, thesometimesaint helpfully defined "presentism" thusly:

QUOTE("thesometimesaint")
presentism noun. The application of current ideals, morals, and standards to historical figures and events.

Example Citation:
"In the midst of this millennial miasma, another word has come along to stir up historians: presentism. 'It's when a historian sees events in the past through the prism of present-day standards,' the lawyer-historian [Annette Gordon-Reed] tells me. 'For example, Thomas Jefferson is often judged harshly as a sexist even though the notion of complete equality between the sexes was almost unthinkable in his era.' Gordon-Reed calls it the 'why wasn't Jefferson like Alan Alda' question."
—William Safire, "Hair-Raising Fund-Raising," The New York Times Magazine


To my mind, this is closely allied to the concept of "ethnocentrism" -- judging another culture by the standards of your own.

So, I am guilty of presentism, if I recoil in horror from the concept of Joseph Smith taking a fourteen-year-old girl as his wife. Were I to live in the 1830s, this would not have affected me in such a way. It would be a matter of course, a matter of commonplace behavior. To my 2007 eyes, however, a child of fourteen seems much too young to be looked upon as a wife. But that would be presentism.

My question is, if this is so, can we not look at any historical event that we do not approve of and pass judgement upon, as a case of presentism? If I look askance at Attila the Hun's tactics, am I really just guilty of presentism? In his day and age, sacking and pillaging was simply how things were accomplished. And Nero? Caligula? Pol Pot? Stalin? Mao?

I don't understand where the line is drawn. It seems that if you argue for presentism, there is no moral absolute, no good or bad, only what is relative to that culture, at that time.

A superb deconstruction of this term as it is used by Mopologists, in my opinion. Really, it seems to me that "presentism" was developed by historians as a means to achieving greater scholarly objectivity, whereas Mopologists want to apply it to morality. I think there is a very big difference indeed between applying "presentism" within the context of an academic paper on biblical polygamy, vs. applying it to early nineteenth century moral attitudes. In any case, I think that "Loquacious Lurker" is quite right when s/he says that when used by Mopologists, "presentism" is just a sneaky, barely veiled form of Moral Relativism, which most apologists would normally abhor.

Regardless, my compliments to LL.

Exactly. Great points. The presentism argument is the latest favorite among apologists to explain away Joseph Smith's behavior. But even presentism doesn't work for joseph Smith because it suggests his behavior was "normal" for his time and place. If his behavior was so normal, why did he get his ass kicked on a regular basis by his 19h century peers for being such a weirdo?

Also, does presentism work in the opposite direction? For example, many of the old guys in SLC judge today's morality based on their own 1930s ideals. Are church leaders guilty of "pastism" when they criticize modern culture and morality based on their own opinions, formed in the 30s and 40s, of what proper morality is?

[_bcspace]

A superb deconstruction of this term as it is used by Mopologists, in my opinion. Really, it seems to me that "presentism" was developed by historians as a means to achieving greater scholarly objectivity, whereas Mopologists want to apply it to morality.

Logically, I am forced to disagree. For example, antiMormons like to hype and sensationalize the age at which some women were sealed to Joseph Smith. This can only have effect if presentism is also in effect because objectively speaking, the age differences mattered much less in Joseph Smith' time than today.

[_Mister Scratch]

A superb deconstruction of this term as it is used by Mopologists, in my opinion. Really, it seems to me that "presentism" was developed by historians as a means to achieving greater scholarly objectivity, whereas Mopologists want to apply it to morality.

Logically, I am forced to disagree. For example, antiMormons like to hype and sensationalize the age at which some women were sealed to Joseph Smith. This can only have effect if presentism is also in effect because objectively speaking, the age differences mattered much less in Joseph Smith' time than today.

I have never seen any convincing evidence that this is so. And in any case, the central point of Loquacious Lurker's post remains: "presentism" as it pertains to history really has little to do with contemporary morality.

[_guy sajer]

A superb deconstruction of this term as it is used by Mopologists, in my opinion. Really, it seems to me that "presentism" was developed by historians as a means to achieving greater scholarly objectivity, whereas Mopologists want to apply it to morality.

Logically, I am forced to disagree. For example, antiMormons like to hype and sensationalize the age at which some women were sealed to Joseph Smith. This can only have effect if presentism is also in effect because objectively speaking, the age differences mattered much less in Joseph Smith' time than today.

I have never seen any convincing evidence that this is so. And in any case, the central point of Loquacious Lurker's post remains: "presentism" as it pertains to history really has little to do with contemporary morality.

Which brings us around to the critical question as to whether God's morals change along with human kind's. Some (e.g., some Mormon apologists and our good friend Makelan) would have us believe that God's morals mirror those of contemporary society (even though this type of reasoning is in direct contradiction with the Mormon belief in "eternal truths") and are constantly, thus, in flux, while others among us believe that God, if he exists and if he's worth worshiping, espouses and upholds a higher set of morals that are not subject to the cultural whims, prejudices, ignorances, etc. of contemporary human society.

It also raises the theoretical and practical question as to whether we have a legitimate right to expect God's annointed to embody a higher set of morals than those of base contemporary society (not that they're perfect, but that they stand above the "common man" in terms of moral nobility). I believe we do; apologists (by inference) appear to believe the opposite.

In fact apologists often tend to hold God's annointed to even lower standards than they do the common man, an outcome rich with obvious irony.

[_guy sajer]

A superb deconstruction of this term as it is used by Mopologists, in my opinion. Really, it seems to me that "presentism" was developed by historians as a means to achieving greater scholarly objectivity, whereas Mopologists want to apply it to morality.

Logically, I am forced to disagree. For example, antiMormons like to hype and sensationalize the age at which some women were sealed to Joseph Smith. This can only have effect if presentism is also in effect because objectively speaking, the age differences mattered much less in Joseph Smith' time than today.

I have never seen any convincing evidence that this is so. And in any case, the central point of Loquacious Lurker's post remains: "presentism" as it pertains to history really has little to do with contemporary morality.

There's also a big difference, I think, in what standards we use to judge 19th century 6-jug Joe and in what standards we use to judge the "Second only to Jesus Christ."

[_bcspace]

Logically, I am forced to disagree. For example, antiMormons like to hype and sensationalize the age at which some women were sealed to Joseph Smith. This can only have effect if presentism is also in effect because objectively speaking, the age differences mattered much less in Joseph Smith' time than today.

I have never seen any convincing evidence that this is so.

You've never seen evidence that certain people are using the differing standards of differing time periods to be (or pretend to be) aghast at the age differences of the girls Joseph Smith was sealed to? That's quite laughable

And in any case, the central point of Loquacious Lurker's post remains: "presentism" as it pertains to history really has little to do with contemporary morality.

An invalid point as it is present morality that is often projected on the past (or vice versa) which causes the loss of objectivity. Morality is well and truly in the mix. A strange error in correlation on the part of Loquacious.

[_Fortigurn]

You've never seen evidence that certain people are using the differing standards of differing time periods to be (or pretend to be) aghast at the age differences of the girls Joseph Smith was sealed to? That's quite laughable

Could you provide evidence that there were different standards? This will involve proving that a mature age man (already married), having sex with a 14 year old girl to whom he was not formally married was considered acceptable in early 19th century North America. Thanks.

[_Coggins7]

The first oder of business Fort, is a shred of compelling historical evidene that Joseph Smith ever had sex with that girl at all. Then we can move on to the sociological questions.

Loran