Dave has an interesting discussion of the place of Mormon history in general American historiography. He links to the paper, "Becoming the American Religion." I've noted in the past various trends that seem to start first in Mormon history and then get picked up elsewhere. Consider Quinn's book on "hermeticism" in early Mormonism which has ushered in a rather diverse set of studies on early American esotericism. Of course Quinn was hardly original in historical studies in that fashion. But he was an important step. It seems that a lot of people do use Mormonism as a way of studying American history. Quinn's use in understandable (such as his controversial study of the view of homosexuality in 19th century Mormonism as a way of understanding 19th century American views). However it really is surprising that so many studies are made on LDS history. Apparently Mormonism rivals Puritanism as the most studied American religious movement. That's quite surprising, all things considered.
Thanks for the link, Clark. I thought the paper was especially useful for linking the reading I've done in Mormon history with what I've read in the general field of American religious history. I think the upcoming publication of Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith (in Dec 2005) will also highlight how the themes of Mormon history and American religious history are largely the same themes, despite the fact the disciplines have not had much connection until very recently.
It's interesting as in some ways LDS history is terribly naive and behind the times. As Nate likes to point out, larger theoretical models haven't often been brought to bear on LDS history. i.e. sociological models, economical models, etc. Even studies like Quinn's hermetic studies weren't (in my opinion) done terribly well in terms of theory.
At the same time though it does seem like there is some real innovation in LDS history - or at least following lines or themes in other areas of history that haven't yet been applied to American history.
I think Nate habitually overstates his point about the lack of an "interpretive framework" in the New Mormon History. The old Mormon history's theoretical model (something like "God's purposes unfolding through the history of the One True Church") is adequate for internal purposes but doesn't cut the mustard for objective or professional historical analysis. It smacks of the "philosophy of history" approach that is often criticized in the approach of Hegel or Toynbee where history is made to conform to a priori views of what is supposed to happen in history. Systematic thinkers always want history to conform to their system. Properly done, facts take logical precedence over constructs, and because facts are so hotly disputed in Mormon history, it is appropriate that a disproportionate degree of effort goes into simply documenting what happened.
Furthermore, denominational histories and mainstream American religious history have likewise lacked any interpretive framework other than what Fleming called "The Grand Tradition," which is simply a Protestant analogue to old Mormon history's view that God is in control of the history. General religious history has only recently moved forward in this regard, so it is incorrect to view New Mormon Historians as somehow uniquely lacking a framework or model. They were moving forward with their profession.
One thing I liked about Fleming's essay is that it shows that the New Mormon History has acutally been much more active in incorporating historical themes and interpretive frameworks into Mormon historical narrative than were earlier orthodox historians.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble