Last Sunday I worshipped at the Church of Football. In my defense, I was finishing up the last leg of a long drive so I couldn’t do regular worship at an LDS chapel. By good fortune, the timing was right to listen to my favorite team play its game on Sunday morning. Satellite radio let me down (no live broadcast), but I was able to pick up the local radio broadcast on a succession of AM stations as I drove across the state. Local broadcasts, with home team announcers, are really quite different from national broadcasts. Local announcers are of course biased in favor of the home team, in contrast to nationals who to try to sound neutral and objective. On the other hand, locals are better informed as to the personnel and details of the local team. Local commentators are (1) better informed; but (2) biased. So let’s kick this around, and of course get to Mormon scholarship, which (surprise!) presents analogous difficulties. Would you rather get your commentary on LDS history and doctrine from local within-tribe scholars or from outsiders?
Better informed? Local football commentators give a lot better commentary on who makes tackles, who is out for the day and what second-string substitutes are playing a lot of snaps, and so forth. Their audience is the home-team fan who knows every player on the team and wants to know the details. Home-team fans don’t want panoramic shots of the city or interviews with tailgaters in the parking lot cooking up a local delicacy — they want to know why the outside linebacker is limping and why the coach punted on 4th and 1 at midfield.
It’s a little muddier with Mormon scholarship. Yes, LDS scholars studying Mormonism “get” a lot of little things about the history and the culture that outsiders struggle to learn and never quite master. These blips were blatantly obvious with an earlier era of Christian polemical writing on the LDS Church (one of the reasons their attacks lacked credibility for LDS readers), but they are less frequent and less obvious in the current crop of non-LDS scholars who do work on Mormonism.
On the other hand, the familiarity can lead LDS scholars to miss the significance or historical interest that clearly strikes outside scholars as important and interesting. Polygamy is an example here. For outsiders, it is just terribly intriguing and not at all obvious how a devout Christian group that was, in many other ways, exemplary in terms of Christian virtue could suddenly adopt a widespread practice of plural marriage with hardly a second thought. Then, two generations later, do an about face and abandon it just as quickly. For a lot of Mormons, taking three wives was just something great-great-grandfather did, no big deal. That’s not bias, just cultural blindness.
Biased? Home team commentators will always back the home team on a close play or a disputed call. They are just meeting the needs of their listening audience. With current Mormon scholarship, both within-tribe scholars and outsiders are much better at avoiding overt bias. That’s one of the benefits of professionalization of the field. Once upon a time it was always quite clear which side of the fence a writer on Mormonism was standing on. Now, that is no longer the case. Except for apologetics, even the newer neo-apologetics that has proven so popular. Bias is sort of built into the apologetic genre, so it isn’t really a criticism to note that it’s there.
So here’s an open question for readers. Do you prefer insider scholarship about Mormonism that is better informed (in some ways) about Mormonism and trust your own ability to detect and bracket any bias? Or do you prefer outsider scholarship that might have a claim to more objectivity but will, from time to time, miss a few details or not quite understand the Mormon way of thinking about religion?
Wheat & Tares 
I enjoy outsider perspectives, but I generally consume more insider perspectives. My preference is insider scholarship where the scholar tends to recognize their own bias and allow for differing opinions. I can get that from many apologists as well as critics. I get impatient with extreme bias on either side (for or against the church), whether it comes from an insider or outsider.
I am concerned about any “scholarship” about Mormonism. Some aspects of Mormonism are appropriate for study by scholars and academics and so forth, and some are not. For example, a historian might recite a fact of what a person said or did, but necessarily will be guessing about why. A sociologist might note a fact that Mormon _____ tend to _____, but necessarily will be guessing about the motivations, hopes, and aspirations of those people. But even facts can be seen wrongly, be re-visited, and so forth.
All scholarship is done for a reason. To really understand, one must understand (1) the real reason for the scholar’s effort, along with (2) the product of his or her scholarship (the facts, opinions, reports, numbers, analyses, conclusions, and so forth). It seems many scholars want to hide (1) while pointing to (2), but really, (1) is important in appreciating (2). A “good” reason doesn’t promise a “good” product and a “bad” reason doesn’t promise a “bad” product, but every proponent of the scientific method knows that the hypothesis colors the methodology and the methodology colors the outcome. In rigorous scholarship, all of this is disclosed.
I’m with Mary Ann. I’m not so fussed whether it’s member or non-member scholarship, but I do value objectivity.
I think your football metaphor is both useful and misplaced. It’s useful as a simple illustration of how the church has behaved towards its own history, i.e., the church is true so, ipso facto, whatever the church does with regard to history is necessary and acceptable. Many devout members still seem to approach church truth, doctrine and history like a football game between BYU and Notre Dame. The metaphor fails, however, in that football is not eternal life (no, I don’t think you meant it that literally). Context and accuracy matter.
I trust modern historians with a faithful bent a lot more than I did previous actors (BH Roberts and Leonard Arrington might get a pass) because the idea of presenting history with a historical bent is also an approach to blurring history, e.g., Joseph marrying a 14-year-old girl versus a young woman several months shy of 15. While some outside historians may approach church history with an agenda, those employed by the church do also. There are too many in the employ of the church (looking at you Kerry Muhlestein and your admission that you try to make Egyptian history fit church scripture and doctrine) who write to please the Q15. Outside the church? Yes, there is often an agenda, but don’t forget that the Tanners ended up being more right than wrong even after enduring years of demonization and allegations of having made up everything they published.
So, yeah, I’ll take external historians, even if they have an axe to lightly grind. The church has done too much massaging of facts for too long to get a pass now.
Edit: I meant history with a faithful bent, not historical bent. Apologies.
It should also be noted that some local announcers are less biased than others. People like Curt Gowdy and Vin Scully are local announcers who translate well to the national scene. You’ve also got national announcers/commentators like Charles Barkley and Bill Walton who enjoy saying controversial things, but aren’t all that objective, even if they are entertaining.
The same applies to insider/outsider scholars. Personally, I don’t care about a person’s insider/outsider status, so long as I feel they are fair.
is an x-Mormon an insider or an outsider? I ask because often times its x-Mormons who have unique insights that nobody else has. I used to think that you should never listen to an X of any religion because all they are going to do is accuse and criticize. And that certainly happens. But what I’ve learned is that it’s often the x-Mormons who are the most honest about LDS history, etc.
Good history takes into consideration various possibilities and perspectives and brings in lots of primary evidence. Good history also makes evaluations based on observable patterns in human nature and behavior. Extraordinary explanations for historical phenomena require extraordinary evidence. When primary evidence is lacking, explanations should be made according to observable patterns. For instance, on the question of is the BOM historical or a 19th-century product, we should regard all explanations for its historicity extraordinary and therefore in need of extraordinary evidence. With such evidence lacking, the default explanation should be accepted; that is a 19th-century text. We know that people throughout history have written fictitious texts that they claim to be historical (i.e., pseudapigrapha). The BOM conforms to such a pattern of human behavior more than it appears to be evidence of a proto-Christian civilization in the Americans 600 BCE-400 CE.
On the question of who to prefer, it depends on the question at hand. Lots of believing Mormons have written solid history on a variety of controversial topics, including the Mountain Meadows Massacre and other topics, that appears to be about as objectively approached as possible. Many ex-Mormons undoubtedly have a bone to pick and their eagerness to malign the church ends up biasing their ultimate product. However, there is a sociological factor that I always take into consideration when reading history. I know from living in a Mormon culture all of my life and reading countless stories of ostracism from people who left the church that in Mormon culture challenging the official church narrative and leaving the church can come at high social costs. Consequently I view believing scholars as more prone to bias when they write about Mormon history than ex-Mormons and non-Mormons. Folks like Terryl Givens and Richard Bushman simply have more to lose socially by claiming that the BOM is not historically true than ex-Mormons and non-Mormons have to lose by claiming that the BOM is historical. Bushman would face serious backlash from his own culture and his own believing colleagues, and even the leaders of the church themselves, if he crossed a certain line. Yes, there is possible backlash against ex-Mormons and non-Mormons for claiming historicity, but it really isn’t nearly as much.
There is a financial factor as well. Mormon studies is mostly funded (indirectly) by the LDS church itself. This funding comes in the form of dozens of academic positions for believing scholars to fill at BYU. Most of the foundational apologetic research (Nibley, Peterson, Hamblin, et. al.) has been done through BYU. Yes, nowadays there are lots and lots of volunteers who are not affiliated with BYU writing from the believing perspective. But this trend was started at BYU and indirectly financed by the church. There is little to no money for Mormon studies outside the church. Consequently we see a lot more high-level academic literature that defends the church than literature that criticizes it. We should bear in mind that a scholar at BYU who crosses the line on a variety of topics, including BOM historicity, women’s and gay rights, and other issues, will most likely be dismissed and ostracized. The September Six are evidence of this. Consequently scholarly literature emanating out of BYU that defends the church should be read with these socialogical and financial factors in consideration.
ji, “every proponent of the scientific method knows that the hypothesis colors the methodology and the methodology colors the outcome. In rigorous scholarship, all of this is disclosed.”
1) The scientific method isn’t rigorous scholarship? 2) There is a type of “rigorous scholarship” that transcends the scientific method and is more prone to objectivity and objective answers? Please share what this is. A part of me thinks that you don’t quite understand what the scientific method is.
“All scholarship is done for a reason”
Here you seem to saying that all scholarship has some sort of ulterior motive and that the best most honest scholarship discloses what that ulterior motive is. This position, of course, favors the believing Mormon scholars on Mormonism, since they tend to disclose that they have a set of beliefs more or less beyond question when approaching scholarship. However, cannot a non-Mormon or even ex-Mormon claim that they don’t have a set position about Mormon truth claims and that are trying to formulate this through scholarship? There isn’t an ex-Mormon church that asks ten percent of their income and asks them to swear secret oaths to devote their lives to it to which ex-Mormons and non-scholars give fealty. If anything, the believing scholars’ revealing their belief as a caveat to their scholarship is simply an admission of conscious bias (which is different from subconscious bias, which a person is not capable of admitting, otherwise it wouldn’t be subconscious).
The sort of rhetoric and caveats you put forward are nothing more than mental insulation from having to face uncomfortable answers that what you believe is true might not in fact be true. It appears to be excuse-finding even before hearing what the non-believing perspectives have to say.
I like to hear a bit of both and have learned to take both with a grain of salt. I need to stop that as my doc is telling me to cut back on salt.
Sometimes the “insider” gets certain things that an outsider just doesn’t quite get. Sometimes the outside can call out when the emperor has no clothes. I like to hear a bit of both and think it over and draw my conclusion.
” If anything, the believing scholars’ revealing their belief as a caveat to their scholarship is simply an admission of conscious bias…”
Yes. And if non-believing scholars also admitted their conscious bias, listeners who might be looking to scholars for answers about Mormonism could make better decisions.
There is a stark difference between the drivers of the biases of believing scholars and those who aren’t or are no longer LDS.
1) For believing scholars, they were raised and conditioned to believe since birth (almost all of them) that the BOM is historical. They have all taken oaths to defend the teachings of the LDS church. They would likely face divorce and ostracism if they said it wasn’t historical. Many would irreparably damage their careers if they said it wasn’t historical.
2) For non-LDS or former LDS scholars, there are two different general types: evangelical Christians and secularists. The evangelical Christians do tend to come from environments with heavy social pressure to profess evangelical beliefs and have a heavy social stigma attached to accepting Mormon truth claims. For the secularists, they generally live in social environments that allow them to have more independence of thought on religious matters. There is no secularist church that has them make covenants to defend particular doctrines. If they accepted Mormon truth as generally true, they might get a few weird looks from colleagues, family, and friends, but it is highly unlikely that they would be completely ostracized, divorced, or fired because of these beliefs. If anything secularist trends in the US are not hard atheist. The general attitude is to accept all mainstream religious beliefs as validly existing and to just let people believe in extraordinary phenomena on their own terms.
There is simply no comparison between believing scholars and secularists. Secularist scholars are a whole lot more likely to be closer to objectivity than believing scholars on hot topic questions.
As the Preacher wrote so long ago, there is nothing new under the sun.
We may reasonably suppose that in the early days of the Christian church, many scholars could not find evidence to support the notion of a resurrection after a cruxifixction. Some witnesses, apologists, and even believing scholars spread this notion to gullible listeners, but those who wanted real truth listened to secularist scholars who were lot more likely to be closer to objectivity than believing scholars.
ji, secularist scholarship, where you have peer review, accessible libraries and archives, modern legal protections for free speech, and widespread literacy, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Plus, we were talking about today’s writing on Mormon history, not ancient accounts of Jesus’s resurrection. That’s a completely different topic.
John W gets it right, I think. As someone who occasionally dabbles in Mormon scholarship, I can say that I generally dismiss out of hand anything from the Maxwell Institute or other church-sponsored body or organization, such as FairMomron. We are all biased and informed by our perceptions, of course, whether we are secular scholars or scholars of faith, but a couple of folks have made comments about job security and position in the Mormon community that are spot on. Anyone who is an academic professional who is Mormon and who works for a church institution is working at an incredible disadvantage when it comes to objectivity, whether because of professional pressures or because of the theological lens through which they view the world. Again, we all have our own lenses, but there is simply no way around the huge bias that most “faithful” Mormon scholars carry with them.
I find great scholarship at BYU in the field of “temple studies/temple theology.” Lots of inter-faith dialogue, more discovery than disagreement.
Collaboration with Margaret Barker (founder of temple theology studies) has been fruitful for LDS temple studies. See lectures on YouTube, read her books.
Samuel Zinner’s treatment of Enoch texts has also broadened horizons for LDS scholarship.
Imagine that… non-members teaching members about the temple!
Margaret Barker is really more of a pseudo-historian. She is a Methodist lay preacher who has long tried to make the case that Jesus was preaching some sort of lost pristine temple theology (dating to the First Temple Period) and restoring a lost Israelite belief system. (You can already see her appeal to LDS believers who are desperately clamoring to find some non-LDS scholar whose writings confirm their beliefs). Her works are based on texts written hundreds of years after the First Temple Period and misinterprets these as accurate history and never seems to take into account that writings were cultural products of their own time that imagined themselves to be in line with some earlier pristine tradition in order to claim authority in their own present circumstances. In spite of her impressive bibliography she oddly seems clueless about the historical context of the works she cites and misinterprets these as containing secret puzzle pieces of this lost First Temple Theology. In the end, her methodology seems to be based on nothing more than parallelomania and apophenia, connecting random dots from texts (she searches for texts all the way in Tibet, what the heck kind of insights are Tibetans going to provide us on ancient Israelite religion?) from all over the place to confirm a predetermined conclusion, about a religion she has long had faith in, that the Old Testament points to Christianity and was not just a collection of Hebraic writings that Jesus’s later followers tried to make their own in order to boost their validity among Jewish followers.
John W, I am a bit surprised with your view on Margaret Barker. Seems more directed at me, than to her scholarship. To call her a pseudo-historian in light of her academic work suggests that you may have read more reviews than actual books. Serious scholars adore her.
That said, John W, glad you took a shot at it. The top religious scholars in the world take Margaret Barker seriously, I don’t have to argue her creditably. I was merely sharing the info.
The argument that first and second temple religions were different is pretty common consensus; Barker’s methodology is supported by King Josiah’s purging of the Jerusalem temple—a textual, biblical event.
“The top religious scholars in the world take Margaret Barker seriously”
I don’t think her ideas about first temple theology have gained much traction among Ancient Near East historians. I don’t believe any of her books have been published by reputable university or secular presses. Mostly religious presses. Her main arguments are a sort of liberal Christian apologia (different of course from conservative Christian apologia which defends young earth creationism and the like). Oddly enough it seems to be mainly LDS scholars who are fascinated with her work as it indirectly validates many of Joseph Smith’s teachings, and they desperately seek any writings of non-LDS scholars that just so happen to do so.
“The argument that first and second temple religions were different is pretty common consensus”
Of course. That is not a controversial claim at all. What is controversial is Barker’s claim that Jesus’s teachings were a sort of restoration of an earlier First Temple theology that was lost because of King Josiah’s reforms, but fragments of which remain in all of these later traditions. Her claim is highly speculative and based on flimsy evidence. At most her research shows how later traditions viewed earlier theology, but her reconstruction of the First Temple theology is a pretty huge leap.
Dear John W, Brother, Braddah:
The claim that Jesus’ teachings reached beyond First Temple Jerusalem—all the way back to Abraham, to a “Melchizedek,” priestly order, in contrast to Moses-Levite priestly order—is evident in the New Testament: the book to The Hebrews, and the saturation of “Abraham” into the New Testament text, and Enoch literature give plenty to work with.
Margaret Barker is the essence of a Christian saint. Your comments about her work are off. You asked for a Near Eastern Scholar—try Nicolas Wyatt, who dedicated work to her; try Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (Archbishop of Constantinople, Orthodox), try LDS independent scholar Jeffrey Bradshaw; try Islamic scholar Shabir Ally; try Jewish-Native American scholar Samuel Zinner.
Dude, Margaret Barker transcends.
Dear John W, Brother, Braddah:
The claim that Jesus’ teachings reached beyond First Temple Jerusalem—all the way back to Abraham, to a “Melchizedek,” priestly order, in contrast to Moses-Levite priestly order—is evident in the New Testament: the book to The Hebrews, and the saturation of “Abraham” into the New Testament text, and Enoch literature give plenty to work with.
Margaret Barker is the essence of a Christian saint. Your comments about her work are off. You asked for a Near Eastern Scholar—try Nicolas Wyatt, who dedicated work to her; try Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (Archbishop of Constantinople, Orthodox), try LDS independent scholar Jeffrey Bradshaw; try Islamic scholar Shabir Ally; try Jewish-Native American scholar Samuel Zinner.
Dude, Margaret Barker transcends.