"New Mormon History"?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Interestingly enough, Indy tried to establish a consensus here that I am Lucifer incarnate and I bet he was quite suprised by the results of his poll expressing agrement with your statement. I think Waters and maybe BDB and Tex must have been the only ones in addition to Indy who voted that SU is evil.

Hey SU, I don't want to pop your balloon, but I voted the way I did partly because I like you and partly because it was Indy's poll and he is such a dickhead most of the time. I dare bet I am not alone regarding factor #2.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Enjoy getting off on you own perceived cleverness. I'm thinking of the little fat bald William Shawn character in the Princess Bride.

What a delightful retort. A typo and a Princess Bride allusion. Clearly, I'm dealing with an intellectual heavyweight here.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The truth is that to any knowledgeable person I explicitly flagged "ambiguous" was my own editorial comment with the brackets. Had you read the article before yapping you would have both learned something about the brackets convention and seen that ambiguous is a fair characterization, since clearly he believes JS did not see Christ, angels or gold books. Thus, his statement that JS had an "encounter with God" is at best ambiguous, at worst a disingenuous sop to his Mormon family and friends.

I know what the brackets mean. I've published articles where I've used the brackets. I didn't ask because I didn't know what the brackets are. I asked because I wanted it on the record, from you, that it is your own editorial spin on what the original meant. Most of us here have learned that once we are looking at the facts of any discussion involving Mormonism from a SU-like perspective, the truth is severely distorted.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SU, New Mormon history isn't that new. It started in the 1970's (although it should probably be traced to Brodie and Brooks). It really refers just refers to the generation of historians that wrote non-hagiographic history (or maybe revisionist is a better description). Quinn is probably the best example of a "New Mormon Historian" but Bushman fits as well.

Also, New Mormon history doesn't necessarily reject foundational truth claims. As I mentioned Quinn is the poster by for New Mormon history and even today (after being excommunicated) he doesn't rejected the foundational truth claims of Mormonism.

Quinn edited a collection of essays called The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past (Signature 1992) that included articles by many historians, including faithful LDS historical heavyweights Leonard Arrington and Dean May. In the introduction, Quinn traces "New Mormon History" to Juanita Brooks, although there "were certainly antecedents." The term New Mormon History (again, according to the intro.) was coined by (a non-LDS historian) Moses Rischin in 1969.

FWIW, Quinn is hard on Brodie, stating that her work, although "erudite and literary," has "more in common with the sins of traditional Mormon history. She discussed fundamental issues of Joseph Smith's life without taking his religious claims seriously and filtered her evidence and analysis through the perspective that the Mormon prophet was at best a 'parapath' and at worst a charlatan." (intro., pg. xiv).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Quinn edited a collection of essays called The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past (Signature 1992) that included articles by many historians, including faithful LDS historical heavyweights Leonard Arrington and Dean May. In the introduction, Quinn traces "New Mormon History" to Juanita Brooks, although there "were certainly antecedents." The term New Mormon History (again, according to the intro.) was coined by (a non-LDS historian) Moses Rischin in 1969.

FWIW, Quinn is hard on Brodie, stating that her work, although "erudite and literary," has "more in common with the sins of traditional Mormon history. She discussed fundamental issues of Joseph Smith's life without taking his religious claims seriously and filtered her evidence and analysis through the perspective that the Mormon prophet was at best a 'parapath' and at worst a charlatan." (intro., pg. xiv).

Thank you, at least Quinn saw Brodie for what she was, a charlatan or parapath herself.