I recently became very frustrated in reading the back and forth between two friends in the Mormon History community. One is a believer; one isn’t. They were discussing a certain historical incident, the 1832 attack on Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, and Sidney Rigdon, his assistant, at the Johnson family farm near Kirtland, Ohio.

There is no reason to go into the specifics, but I noticed a certain dynamic at work and realized that it is a dynamic that is played out over and over again in the Mormon Studies arena.

Why is it so difficult for the historians, whether they are amateur or professional, to carry out a civil and respectful conversation and arrive together at a consensus or, at least, a near consensus?

Let me start by giving the answer, and then I’ll work my way through my reasoning.

The answer is: The stakes are too big.

Instead of approaching the subject dispassionately with a true interest in finding out what really happened, many in this community already have their final answers. They are looking to history to support their conclusions. They don’t want history to tell them a new story. They want history to tell them that they’re right.

They are trying to create history rather than allow history to lead them to the facts or an approximation of the facts.

The true-believing historian is out to support his belief that Mormonism is True (yes, the capital “T” is intentional). For this historian, who has made major life decisions based on this thesis and who perhaps belongs to a family that has been LDS for several generations, he’s looking for historical validation. He already knows the final answers: Joseph Smith was a Prophet, angels really did appear, the LDS Church is the only true and living church on the face of the earth, the Book of Mormon is a historical record, Thomas Monson is a Prophet, etc.

Any evidence, or even any theory that would appear to contradict this, is faulty or incomplete. Accepting the contradiction could throw his world view, his professional standing, his entire life into chaos and uncertainty.

The non-believing historian is out to support his position that Mormonism is not True. That it is not of divine origin. That Joseph Smith was not exactly what he said he was. Any theory that contradicts this position must be flawed. Because if it isn’t, then he’ll have to stop drinking coffee and start doing his home teaching.

In the spirit of full disclosure: I’m no longer a believer. In my mind, the long and great fight of Mormonism vs. Reality has come to a dramatic end. And Mormonism is lying face down on the mat. In my mind, angels didn’t appear, the Book of Mormon is of human origin, Thomas S. Monson is a nice man, but has no more privileged access to God than any of the rest of us.

I came to these personal conclusions through my own reasoning, study, and introspection.

After more than 180 years there really is no physical evidence that any of Joseph Smith’s many stories actually occurred. Nephites, Lamanites, angels, Zelph, etc. True, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. But still…I mean, c’mon. Nothing?

There are, however, natural and common sense explanations for any of these things. And, in my mind, the natural and common sense explanations not only make a lot more sense, but they seem to come from the same universe that I inhabit on a daily basis.

So, in my mind and in the minds of many historians and students of Mormonism, the big question has been answered. I also believe that anyone with a clear mind, and nothing big at stake, would look at all the information and evidence and would come to the same conclusion.

But in order to avoid coming face to face with that final answer, we choose to fight little battles in a war that is long since over.

The Little Battles

Back to my friends: the non-believer believes that it is most likely that the attack on Joseph Smith was the result of his having some sort of inappropriate sexual contact with one of the Johnson daughters. Why does he think this? Because certain documents and statements from the time indicate that the Johnson brothers were a part of the mob, that a doctor was brought into the mob for the purpose of castrating Smith, and because Joseph’s later and well-established actions strongly suggest that this was a man who, shall we say, “wooed” many women whose names were not Emma Smith (his wife).

Now this is a problem for our believing historians. How could a Prophet be inspired by God while simultaneously making the beast with two backs with a luscious young beauty behind Emma’s back?

Well, obviously, this is problematic. Very problematic. So this information or, at least, this interpretation of this information must be false. The believing “apologist” must explain this away.

So maybe he can find some evidence that castration was a general punishment that had nothing to do with the victim’s stepping outside the accepted boundaries of sexual behavior.

Maybe the mob was after Rigdon. Maybe Rigdon was the one dipping his pen in Farmer Johnson’s ink.

I’m going off on a tangent here, and I realize this. The point being: these historians are also going to go off on all sorts of tangents (probably finding some really great information along the way) until the whole subject is just such a tangle of confusion and such a source of conflict that they will each take the high ground and “agree to disagree.”

And these little battles are played out over and over and over again, seemingly infinitely. Sub-subjects within Mountain Meadows, the First Vision, Polygamy, etc., occupy all of our attention so that we won’t look up and acknowledge that the war is over. The little battles rage on with no end in sight.

We’re like those recluses who lived in the mountains of Tennessee up until the turn of the 20^th century who still didn’t know, or wouldn’t acknowledge, that the Civil War ended in 1864.

Before I wrap this up, let me be clear: I don’t think that a study of what happened on the Johnson Farm in 1832 is a waste of time. It isn’t. It’s a fascinating bit of history about an important religious figure whose life has impacted millions of people.

But I’m starting to think that Mormons and ex-Mormons are not well suited to the research and study of Mormon history. They have too much at stake.

Unfortunately, no one else is interested.

It would be healthy for us all to step back and look at the forest – at what it really is – instead of fighting our turf wars over each individual tree.

Note: I really should make another few passes at this before I post it, but I don’t have the time right now. Instead of an iron-clad, exhaustive treatment of a subject, I’ve just thrown out an idea. Maybe the rest of you can help me flesh it out.