BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine Hiring 2-3 Faculty Positions–Application Deadline January 21, 2011

“Church History and Doctrine has 2 or 3 faculty positions to be filled this year. Candidates can apply at https://yjobs.byu.edu. Applications will be accepted through January 21, 2011.”

Here are a few random (one that was posted recently and the others which were linked to in the subsequent discussion) posts in the Bloggernacle dealing with the BYU Religion Department:

Continue Reading

2010 in Retrospect: A Glance at some of the Scholarly Books and Articles in Mormon History

I love year-in-review lists. Building on last year’s post, this is a retrospective of 2010’s scholarly output in Mormon studies. I hope to add to the excellent posts by Jared (forthcoming) and J Stapley by listing not only books, but articles that also deserve attention. (As noted recently, historians should really reconsider our “journal standard,” and place more importance on scholarship other than monographs.) I also like this format because it allows reflections on general trends within Mormon studies and historiography in general.

I am bound to overlook some books and articles that others feel are significant. This is not on purpose–it is more a result of being 1) lazy 2) limited in my personal interests, or 3) ignorant of work while being stranded across the Atlantic Ocean. I hope people will mention and discuss the texts I overlook in the comments. There could also be another post dedicated to the excellent historical posts found in the bloggernacle over the last year–but that would be beyond the scopes of this retrospect.

[Note: Some of these works have a publication date of 2009. I include these for one of two reasons. 1) They were published after I posted last year’s retrospective (the perils of posting at the beginning of December). 2) Though they have a 2009 publication date, they actually didn’t appear until 2010.]

Continue Reading

Historical Fundamentalism and Mormon History

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.

Continue Reading

Microhistory and Mormon Studies

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]

Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Interpreting Early Mormon Thought

[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.

Continue Reading

Sally Hemings, Thomas Jefferson, and Mormon History

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.

Continue Reading

The Next Jan Shipps?

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.

Continue Reading

Patheos: The Future of Mormonism

We must be in the “dog days of summer,” as the blog has been rather slow of late. But I thought I’d point our readers to a great series that I just became aware of, called “The Future of Mormonism,” over at Patheos. It has several posts discussing different aspects of Mormonism, written by prominent scholars and bloggers. They’re all worth checking out:

Continue Reading

Is Mormonism “understudied”?

I’m making my way through Jeffrey Williams’s Religion and Violence in Early American Methodism: Taking the Kingdom by Force (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010), an admittedly revisionist challenge to the current scholarship on early Methodism that highlights the rhetorical violence in the sermons, conversion narratives, and personal writings of Wesley’s disciples in the early American republic. I may consider posting a brief review of the book (and noting any potential avenues for research in Mormon studies it may suggest) when I complete it, but for the time being, I want to focus in on one line from the book’s foreword, authored by Catherine Albanese and Stephen Stein, editors of the Religion in North America series of which this book is a part.

Continue Reading

?Some things that are true are not very useful:? a vindication.

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.

Continue Reading