Mormon Studies won’t ever grow in secular academia
is probably the case.

So, for example, when I am looking at the history of the Strangites, I do my best to consider and respect the perspectives of individual Strangite Mormons. I’ve been thinking about these ideas a lot lately. Thanks for giving me some more to chew on.

I don’t know the extent to which people embrace perspectivism in their own disciplines, but it seems to me that something much like perspectivism is the basis on which people in academia outside religious studies, ethnic studies, and related fields justify the existence of those fields. In particular, university administrators and fundraisers often make appeals explicitly on this basis.

I wonder what argument, other than something like a perspectivism position, would lead a secular university outside the Mormon corridor to create a position that could be filled by a scholar who is explicit about her own Mormon faith in her research? Invocations of concepts like diversity and representation fall within the boundaries of perspectivism here: the idea that having more points of view on campus is good per se, and not because those points of view might be specifically valid or correct…

Clark, Midgley and Bohn were explicit on that point in their articles, weren’t they?

John F., I love you, man. Let Rough Stone Rolling go. It doesn’t fit the conversation. In particular, I haven’t said a word that relates in any way to the idea that future biographers of Joseph Smith might disregard Bushman’s work. The question here is really about where future biographers of Joseph Smith will work.

JNS, it seems like you are saying, flat out, that only perspectivism will cause Mormon Studies to grow in secular academia. That’s a non sequitur, right?

If Mormon Studies didn’t exist, Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith could still exist in exactly the same form that it does now. It would be a work of American history in the cultural history genre, perhaps, and not a product of “Mormon Studies” at all. That the biography lets Joseph Smith speak for himself without taking extra space to offer speculations as to just how Smith was defrauding people despite what he was saying (Vogel) would not be enough to justify future biographers rejecting it without addressing it. The book presents evidence from the historical record and draws some inferences therefrom and in other cases abstains from drawing inferences after presenting the evidence itself.

I thought you said there were no superior arguments or at least that no one can tell what they are. Based on the quote above, however, it looks like we agree. Thus, Bushman’s work can be evaluated on how it engages the evidence and whether the inferences Bushman makes are compatible with that evidence. Healthy debate can also follow regarding why Bushman prefers certain possible inferences over others. And of course everyone already has a seat at the table, independent of perspectivism. It’s just that their place at the table is at least partially dependent on what they actually say. For example, if they say that “the existing evidence never mentions Joseph Smith as a treasure digger” then they might well forfeit their place at the table.