History grad students learn about Leopold von Ranke, the 19^th century German considered the father of the modern discipline of history, famous for stating the objective of discovering “what actually happened.” History grad students will learn that statement is much criticized, as grad students also learn the incompleteness, problems with records, and problem of the humans making the judgements.

But others note that despite all those limitations, historians really do want to try to understand the past like Ranke said, and that good methodology helps historians make the best historical judgments. Mark Ashurst McGee’s “Moroni: Angel or Treasure Guardian?” gives a nice overview: earlier and closest the subject is best. But based on that criteria, the 1832 First Vision account would be given primacy over the 1838 account for being earlier.

Differences in First Visions accounts long noted and debated, but in the differences between those accounts, church members tend to pick the later 1838 over the 1832 account. 1832 famously mentions “the Lord” not “two personages” one of which is the other’s “beloved son,” but there are other differences as well. My adviser liked to point out that in the 1832 accounts JS come to the conclusion that “mankind had apostatized” on his own, but in the 1838 account God tells JS that. Again “earliest is best” would give primacy to the 1832 account in such conflict between sources.

But in the framework of mythos and logos, literally making a text scripture like “Joseph Smith—History” in the Pearl of Great Price, officially thrusts the text into the mythos category: a holy statement about divine truth. Such a category is a lot of weight for a text to bear as communities tend to prefer that their mythos not be challenged by logos.

Such clashes are common in historical approaches to Mormonism. The cautions about the difficulty in understanding the past led some Mormon apologists to a critique of the historical enterprise in general, arguing that since we couldn’t fully know the past, the believers’ faithful version was just as good as the scholarly one. (Examples include political scientists David Bohn, Louis Midgley, and Alan Goff).

Historians generally balk at such claims under the belief that the records do reveal something, and that basic methodology can be illuminating. But such critics of the enterprise do highlight the question of objectives: is it to learn about the past or to defend (or perhaps attack if one is a critic) the religions mythos of a standard narrative?

Very often in Mormon history, believing historians and apologists have chosen the second. In doing so, I’ve noticed a trend I’ve not liked that I would call the “defense attorney approach” where a researcher will defend faith claims as though they are trying to get their client (their religion) “off” from the charges of critics. The outcome is predetermined by them, and they often set a very high bar that the critics must clear to “prove” their claims, almost as those they are a lawyer demanding that the opposition prove their position “beyond a reasonable doubt.” “If you cannot PROVE your claim at this very high bar, then we will just stick with our faith claims” (even though those claims usually don’t make it over such a high bar either).

This is a very bad approach, I would argue, as historians should be more like detectives and jurors than lawyers arguing for a predetermined outcome. Historians really ought to frame the objective differently. Instead of focusing so much on one’s opponents lack of proof (some of that is certainly necessary), that objective, I believe, ought to be focus on what I would called “best conclusions,” or based on the evidence, what conclusion seems most likely. I think “Todd’s” comment on this post, put the issue well.

And in determining such conclusions, I really think that historians ought to focus on the historical methods (logos) and not defending the traditional narrative of the mythos. No doubt many will argue over what is the best conclusion, but I would also propose that when we have an idea of what those best conclusions may be, then we are in a better position to think about the implications for faith claims, or making meaning based on what most likely happened.

More on that.