Mormon History?
March 4, 2013 5:37 PM Subscribe
How does Brigham Young University teach American History? Do they tell students that Jesus actually came to America? And how do they deal with the story that Missouri was the real Garden of Eden?
I'm pretty sure Jesus coming to America is definitely universal Mormon doctrine, it's the whole point of the Book of Mormon. (I grew up Mormon, everyone I knew believed it.)
Having said that, I wouldn't expect it to be taught in an American History class at BYU any more than a Middle Eastern History class at a Catholic university would talk about Jesus's life there.
The Missouri thing, on the other hand, almost no Mormons believe that.
posted by mmoncur at 10:27 PM on March 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Having said that, I wouldn't expect it to be taught in an American History class at BYU any more than a Middle Eastern History class at a Catholic university would talk about Jesus's life there.
The Missouri thing, on the other hand, almost no Mormons believe that.
posted by mmoncur at 10:27 PM on March 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yes. Good/ethical/accredited religious schools keep their doctrine out of non-religious classes.
posted by gjc at 3:43 AM on March 5, 2013
posted by gjc at 3:43 AM on March 5, 2013
Response by poster: Well, except for the fact that Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others mention Jesus in their historic writings, not as part of a religious debate. Clearly, their writings could be part of a Catholic (or any other) history class on that era.
As mmoncur stated, the concept of Jesus coming to America is what the Book of Mormon is about, so I would expect some debate in about the historicity of his visit to America.
posted by mmf at 7:22 AM on March 5, 2013
As mmoncur stated, the concept of Jesus coming to America is what the Book of Mormon is about, so I would expect some debate in about the historicity of his visit to America.
posted by mmf at 7:22 AM on March 5, 2013
BYU is very good at keeping religion in the religion classes, and history (or science) in the history (or science) classes. Speculation isn't useful when it's taught as fact.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2013
posted by blue_beetle at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2013
Clearly, their writings could be part of a Catholic (or any other) history class on that era.
Sure. It seems like at least part of your question is really more about historiography - that is, what is and isn't included in things we call "history," in what ways, and how that gets decided/how that evolves. If you're really curious about BYU and its American history classes specifically, you can always try emailing the professors who teach them. They may or may not get back to you, depending on their schedules and how you word your email.
posted by rtha at 8:28 AM on March 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
Sure. It seems like at least part of your question is really more about historiography - that is, what is and isn't included in things we call "history," in what ways, and how that gets decided/how that evolves. If you're really curious about BYU and its American history classes specifically, you can always try emailing the professors who teach them. They may or may not get back to you, depending on their schedules and how you word your email.
posted by rtha at 8:28 AM on March 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you're interested in how intelligent people who believe in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon make those beliefs work with the historical and scientific facts, a good starting point might be the works of former BYU professor Hugh Nibley. While this may not have been addressed in History 101, BYU students who were interested in the Book Of Mormon and history would probably be directed to articles and books like these.
posted by steinwald at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by steinwald at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ooh, yeah - TWF hits the nail exactly with Mesoamerican history. I was (obviously) thinking more narrowly about Smith's journey and his role in both Mormon and American history, and how the story of that role gets told in secular classes vs more sectarian/religious classes.
We spent a some time in the desert SW this past fall, and although there is all kinds of evidence of human habitation and culture (e.g. Chaco Culture) from a long time past, it is very, very difficult to interpret what that evidence means even when it's stuff (like, buildings and towns and cities even) from a thousand years ago, let alone longer.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on March 5, 2013
We spent a some time in the desert SW this past fall, and although there is all kinds of evidence of human habitation and culture (e.g. Chaco Culture) from a long time past, it is very, very difficult to interpret what that evidence means even when it's stuff (like, buildings and towns and cities even) from a thousand years ago, let alone longer.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on March 5, 2013
This won't answer your question, but I was at a history museum conference in Salt Lake City last October and throughout the week we heard from a few Mormon historians. I admit I was a bit eye-rolly at what I thought was an oxymoron, but to a person, the historians were learned and articulate and the papers/addresses they gave were informative, honest, aligned with mainstream thought in the discipline, and fascinating. In short, it looks like Mormons can produce good historians.
Somewhat related will be this post about Mormon archaeology. Though I would say that I expect the same schism between "Mormons who are archaeologists" and "Mormon archaeology" exists between "Christians who are archaeologists" and "Biblical archaeology." That is to say, that assuming the truth of a hypothesis and looking for evidence to support it isn't good archaeology no matter where you trained.
posted by Miko at 12:18 PM on March 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Somewhat related will be this post about Mormon archaeology. Though I would say that I expect the same schism between "Mormons who are archaeologists" and "Mormon archaeology" exists between "Christians who are archaeologists" and "Biblical archaeology." That is to say, that assuming the truth of a hypothesis and looking for evidence to support it isn't good archaeology no matter where you trained.
posted by Miko at 12:18 PM on March 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
You can also see the list of faculty in the BYU history department here.
Note that while many of the full-time professors (as an exmple) did attend BYU at some point, not one of them received their Ph.D's from BYU...as one would expect of any diverse academic department. Instead you've got History Ph.D's from
Duke
University of Wisconsin
University of Arizona
University of Michigan
Rutgers
University of Chicago
University of California
It's not smoking-gun proof, but I'd be pretty shocked if all these professors, after having undergone rigorous Ph.D defenses all over the country at highly respected shools would ever be able come to an agreement that the BYU history department's curriculum should include anything outside of the realm of actual history.
Regardless of the institution's ties to the Mormon church, BYU has a reputation and several accreditations to maintain; they would gain nothing by adding religious speculation into a history course, and I've never seen any evidence of it occurring.
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:30 PM on March 5, 2013
Note that while many of the full-time professors (as an exmple) did attend BYU at some point, not one of them received their Ph.D's from BYU...as one would expect of any diverse academic department. Instead you've got History Ph.D's from
Duke
University of Wisconsin
University of Arizona
University of Michigan
Rutgers
University of Chicago
University of California
It's not smoking-gun proof, but I'd be pretty shocked if all these professors, after having undergone rigorous Ph.D defenses all over the country at highly respected shools would ever be able come to an agreement that the BYU history department's curriculum should include anything outside of the realm of actual history.
Regardless of the institution's ties to the Mormon church, BYU has a reputation and several accreditations to maintain; they would gain nothing by adding religious speculation into a history course, and I've never seen any evidence of it occurring.
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:30 PM on March 5, 2013
For what it's worth, while the actual Chapter-and-Verse of the Book of Mormon might not mention Jesus in the Americas specifically, the Introduction of most editions, including the current one, does explicitly say that.
posted by mmoncur at 9:40 PM on March 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by mmoncur at 9:40 PM on March 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by rtha at 5:56 PM on March 4, 2013 [5 favorites]