New Mormon history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Mormon History refers to a philosophy of reporting the history of Mormonism in a manner that is as functionally objective as possible.
Contents |
[edit] History
The term was originally published in 1969 by the Jewish historian Moses Rischin in his article "The New Mormon History."[1]
Although Rischin coined the term, D. Michael Quinn dates New Mormon History as beginning in 1950 with Juanita Brooks’ publication of "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" by Stanford University Press. He notes, however, that it had been gaining momentum even before that, citing that B.H. Roberts—Church historian from 1901 until his death in 1933—“exemplified much of the philosophy later identified with the New Mormon History.” [2]
[edit] New History
New Mormon History is but a reflection of the change in writing history overall that took root in the 20th century. Quinn states that “the New Mormon History includes all of the ingredients of the “new history” in America at large but has one crucial addition: the effort to avoid using history as a religious battering ram.” [3]
The new historical movement's inclusive definition of the proper matter of historical study has also given it the label total history. The movement was contrasted with the traditional ways of writing history which particularly characterized the nineteenth century, resisting their focus on politics and 'great men'; their insistence on composing historical narrative; their emphasis on administrative documents as key source materials; their concern with individuals' motivations and intentions as explanatory factors for historical events; and their willingness to accept the possibility of historians' objectivity.
[edit] Differences from traditional Mormon history
Quinn, referring to Brooks’ history of the Mountain Meadows massacre, states that New Mormon History began with her in that she “avoided the seven deadly sins of traditional Mormon history.” Quinn identifies these “sins” as:
-
- 1. Not shrinking from analyzing a controversial topic
- 2. Not concealing a sensitive or contradictory interpretation
- 3. Not hesitating to follow the evidence to “revisionist” interpretations that run counter to “traditional” assumptions
- 4. Not using one’s evidence to insult the religious beliefs of Mormons
- 5. Not disappointing the scholarly expectations of academics
- 6. Not catering to public relations preferences
- 7. Not using an “academic” work to proselytize for religious conversion or defection [4]
