Things “We” Don’t Believe
By November 21, 2010
In Robert Bartlett’s The Natural and the Supernatural in the Middle Ages (2008), he pauses to wonder how historians deal with beliefs our subjects hold but “we” don’t.
By November 21, 2010
In Robert Bartlett’s The Natural and the Supernatural in the Middle Ages (2008), he pauses to wonder how historians deal with beliefs our subjects hold but “we” don’t.
By November 1, 2010
Historical fundamentalism has been a hot topic as of late. Partly as a reaction to movements like the Tea Party, partly as a continuation of the frustrating distance between mainstream and academic history, and partly in response to the growth of constitutional originalism in public discourse as an opposition to societal and political changes?all three parts, it should be noted, are unmistakably interconnected?there has been an increase of ruminations concerning the relationship between the past and the present. (See here, here, here, and here, for example. Also, and especially, here, and here) A recent and significant contribution to these debates comes from Harvard historian Jill Lepore, whose The Whites of their Eyes: The Tea Party?s Revolution and the Battle over American History is a captivating account of how people use (and abuse) the past for modern causes, collapsing the distance between then and now in an effort to gain political and intellectual validation. (A great overview of the book, as well as an insightful interview with Lepore, can be found here. For an enlightening previous interview with Lepore on the importance of being a ?public historian,? sees here.)[1] Personally, I?ve been looking forward to the book for months.
By August 31, 2010
As you might be able to tell from my recent posts, I have recently been contemplating historical theory and the historian’s craft, especially as it relates to Mormon history. I am particularly interested in historiographic methods that have not, as of yet, been adopted in Mormon studies. (See here, for instance.) Today, after reading Jill Lepore’s evocative essay “Historians Who Love Too Much: Reflections on Microhistory and Biography,” I am contemplating the benefits of microhistory.[1]
By August 23, 2010
[What follows is the gist of the introduction from my paper “Celestial Family Organization: The Developing Nature of Mormon Conceptions of Heaven, circa 1840s,” presented at the 2010 MHA Conference.]
This post begins with a seemingly unrelated starting point: the debate over the legacy of Kantian philosophy in 1790s Germany. Philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in defense of his interpretation of Kantian idealism, argued for a distinction between ?the inventor? of an ideological system, and ?his commentators and disciples.? Fichte explained,
The inventor of a system is one thing, and his commentators and disciples are another?The reason is this: The followers do not yet have the idea of the whole; for if they had it, they would not require to study the new system; they are obliged first to piece together this idea out of the parts that the inventor provides for them; [but] all these parts are in fact not wholly determined, rounded and polished in their minds?
Fichte continued by explaining ?the inventor proceeds from the idea of the whole, in which all the parts are united, and sets for these parts individually?The business of the followers,? on the other hand, ?is to synthesize what they still by no means possess, but are only to obtain by the synthesis.?[1]
The specifics of Kantian philosophy that Fichte was debating hold little importance to us, but the tension he outlines between an ?inventor? and ?disciple? plays an important correlating role in the development of early Mormon thought, just as it does with any movement that boasts an innovative founder.
By August 16, 2010
As a grad student, one?s life is composed almost entirely with books. While all books are at least in some part formative of how one thinks and understands one?s field, most are somewhat forgettable beyond the pages of notes taken for future reference. However, every once in a while there?s a book that not only stands out from the rest but leaves a deep impression on how one views the historical craft. For me, Annette Gordon-Reed?s Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (W. W. Norton & Company, 2008) is one of those books.
By August 13, 2010
I recently came across a comment—made in passing and surely intended as nothing more than a kind compliment—that a young graduate student, not a Latter Day Saint (in any of its denominational manifestations) whose research focuses in part on Mormonism, was “the next Jan Shipps.” Such high praise got me thinking exactly what such a statement might mean, and (while it was indeed a compliment to this graduate student) whether Mormon Studies needs or wants another Jan Shipps. Let me explain.
By July 13, 2010
A lot of people would say no,
By April 8, 2010
Part IV in the JI?s ongoing series on secularism and religious education
I feel honored (and intimidated) to continue a worthwhile discussion on the relationship between secularism and religion in academia. While Taylor, Matt, and Ryan have each provided poignant contributions that explore the ideas, tensions, and environments of this issue, my post is designed more as a reflection on my own experience.
By April 1, 2010
Part II in the JI’s ongoing series on secularism and religious education.
I am recently, and demonstrably, interested in the ways in which Mormons think about what history is, and how it is manufactured, and why, exactly, we care so much about it. As you are probably aware, Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recently delivered at Harvard Law School an address titled ?The Fundamental Premises of our Faith.? Generally speaking, he delivered, offering a reasonable primer of the basics of contemporary LDS doctrine and church life: from an embodied God and eternal progression to wards and to nobody?s surprise, marriage. But more than merely outlining the Gospel Principles manual, throughout the entire talk ? oftentimes glancingly, but occasionally explicitly ? Oaks enunciated a particular way of thinking about information, and from whence it is derived, and how it is organized into knowledge, and about how all these things relate to God that, I think, we can use to understand more deeply the position of those ranks of General Authorities of the church who have spoken most notoriously on the writing of church history in the past thirty years or so, on how the writing of Mormon history should be understood.
© 2024 – Juvenile Instructor
Recent Comments
Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “The burden of proof is on the claim of there BEING Nephites. From a scholarly point of view, the burden of proof is on the…”
Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “But that's not what I was saying about the nature of evidence of an unknown civilization. I am talking about linguistics, not ruins. …”
Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “Large civilizations leave behind evidence of their existence. For instance, I just read that scholars estimate the kingdom of Judah to have been around 110,000…”
Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “I have always understood the key to issues with Nephite archeology to be language. Besides the fact that there is vastly more to Mesoamerican…”
Steven Borup on In Memoriam: James B.: “Bro Allen was the lead coordinator in 1980 for the BYU Washington, DC Seminar and added valuable insights into American history as we also toured…”
David G. on In Memoriam: James B.: “Jim was a legend who impacted so many through his scholarship and kind mentoring. He'll be missed.”