Comments on: A question from an ignoramus: Mormon scholarship

By: Velikiye Kniaz

Velikiye Kniaz — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:04:38 +0000

Ann #25 and ESO #28;
You will find in the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Museum on Main Street in Salt Lake City, (just west of the Utah State Capitol Building), among the pioneer, artifacts, memoralbilia, etc. at least one clipping of Joseph Smith’s hair and it is sandy blond. This matches with other clippings to be found in the collections of the Church Historical Department as well as others in various collections. From my understanding, i.e. as it was explained to me while at BYU by one of the professors of Church History that it was decided to portray the Prophet as having brown hair because blond hair was considered effeminate in the first part of the 20th century. Blond men were also considered to be less courageous and to possess a weaker character in that era. As an artist and erstwhile portraitist I found this bit of historic visual modification intriguing. Nonetheless, from the physical evidence Joseph was indeed a blond, although there are some who would claim that the hair has ‘faded’ or been exposed to too much light. Evidently then, all samples in their various locations were exposed to precisely the same type and amount of light for equal amounts of time. Thus the portrait on the manual is nearly correct. I say nearly correct because it actually should be somewhat lighter than portrayed.

By: Martin Willey

Martin Willey — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:55:49 +0000

A prediction: Mormon scholarship on Book of Mormon history, geography, etc., especially as it relates to the relationship between BOM travelers to the western hemisphere and the scope of their presence and influnce here, will have a profound impact upon the average member’s understanding of what the BOM is really a history of. Our understanding of Lamanites, for example, has already changed (see changes to BOM introduction), and will continue to do so.

By: ESO

ESO — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:20:58 +0000

Ann–
“isn’t serious about a realistic portrayal of Smith. Since when is he BLOND?”

A victim of whitewashing? Maybe he gets more blonde as we get more righteous….

By: Bryce Haymond

Bryce Haymond — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:28:23 +0000

I think the affect Mormon scholarship has had on the average member is a general confidence among the general membership in the depth and breadth of the restored gospel, and that it can’t be proved or disproved with a simple wave of the hand. There is substance in the gospel, and I think that reflects and spreads throughout the membership.

By: Kari

Kari — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:28:47 +0000

I’ll echo what has been said above — that I think that the fruits of LDS scholarship are starting to filter into Church curriculum materials, magazines, and conference talks.

I would agree with this statement, and the general discussion that supports it, if we clarify that when we say scholarship, we really mean apologetics or apologetic scholarship. Non-apologetic, anti-LDS, the New Mormon History, or simple general scholarship as is done by Jan Shipps, only trickles down as it affects what the apologetics are addressing.

By: Ann

Ann — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:01:21 +0000

Queuno, I don’t think you can say that the Bloggernacle (or the rest of the Mormon/DaMU internet) has affected the average Mormon, except to the extent that it’s out there for people to find if they are interested.

OT: Everybody keeps raving about how wonderful and deep the new JS manual is. I don’t get it. It seems just like more of the same to me. I’d love to see a post that compares it to earlier manuals using a variety of criteria, like use of quotes in context, historical accuracy, presentation, usefulness of the questions as discussion starters, etc.

The cover picture alone makes me think the church isn’t serious about a realistic portrayal of Smith. Since when is he BLOND?

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:37:07 +0000

ditto, #23, from someone else over 40. It affects my generation less than my youngest siblings’ and children’s generations.

By: Kevinf

Kevinf — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:09:57 +0000

I’m dating myself here, but I think there was a confluence of issues when the whole Mark Hoffman/Salamander Letter issue resolved so negatively. The influence of the “conservatives” such as BRM and others had been at odds with the Leonard Arrington inspired openness into history and scholarship in general.

For those who don’t remember, there was a huge intake of collective breath, and a retreat from a lot of the inquiry that had transpired when Hoffman’s forgeries came to light. To that end, I think, we saw a period that looked down on scholarship in the church in general, and to a distrust of scholars and intellectuals, that is slowly coming to an end.

I credit the openness of President Hinckley, and the explosion of the internet, for reversing a harmful trend. As the church faced the growth of anti-mormon and outside scholarship on the internet, the only tow logical positions were to respond in kind with more information, and greater transparency, or further retrenchment into an even more regressive stance on scholarship and history. The latter, IMO, was just not feasible, and not in the best interests of the church, and no one I think understood that better than President Hinckley.

But for the average member over 40, scholarship is not viewed, from my perspective, as very important, or having much impact. Younger than that, and you’ve grown up in a more information-centric world, and the expectations are different. To that end, I suspect it could be an effort by the grass roots and the top leadership of the church working towards each other. As others have pointed out, the Ensign is venturing into newer and different fields, and the Church’s website is a reflection of the “more information is better” perspective. The latest JS manual is also a reflection of this trend.

By: queuno

queuno — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:51:13 +0000

How has the Bloggernacle affected the average member of the church?

By: ESO

ESO — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:14:21 +0000

john–perhaps my writing is unclear, but I agree with the trickle-down. Ideas bandied about by scholars eventually affect lay church members, but only after they appear in “sanitized” forums, like the example of the Welch article in the Ensign.

I think many (most?) Church members are troubled by ideas and theories that cannot readily be identified and verified as “approved” so until it is in a Church manual, magazine, or conference talk, it will likely be dismissed.