When I reviewed The Washington Hypothesis at a conference last fall, I asked the sponsor not to post the recording of my review with the rest of the conference proceedings. But with the promotion of this book again this week through a Deseret News puff piece on Timothy Ballard, just in time for the Fourth of July, I’ve decided to post this anyway. It summarizes what I’ve written before on the fictional, literary creation that is “Washington’s Vision”; it also fixes the blame for this dreck where I believe it belongs — not primarily on its author’s amateurish attempts at inspirational history, but on what seems to be its publisher’s shameless and knowing promotion of falsehood.
-oooOooo-
In April 1861, in the same week the Confederacy fired on the U.S. garrison at Fort Sumter, a piece of romantic patriotism was published in the Atlantic Monthly Review. It struck just the note the American people needed to hear at that dramatic moment: protected by angels and guided by heaven, the American Union would be preserved, then and forever.
The American public recognized this sweet tale for what it was: the literary equivalent of a popular 19th century genre painting, with the metaphorical Spirit of America, or Spirit of Progress, or Spirit of the Age, depicted as an angel, usually a feminine one, striding across the American landscape, revealing the glorious future of America and inviting viewers to follow.
This 1861 magazine article was no different. According to its words, an angel had appeared to George Washington in the darkest days at Valley Forge, carrying Washington on a spectral journey across the American landscape, where he witnessed farms and factories, the nation’s happiness and success, and her overcoming of all future challenges.
There can be little question that the readers of “Washington’s Vision,” as it was known, recognized the genre for what it was: an inspiring tableau, but not an objective, factual, historical occurrence. From our distance of more than 150 years, we have even more reason for recognizing “Washington’s Vision” for the artistic and imaginative creation that it was:
We know that its author, Wesley Bradshaw, was the pen name of Charles Wesley Alexander, a Philadelphia man of letters who used his real name for his scholarly work on Edgar Allen Poe and other serious topics, and used his pen name for more popular, less scholarly works of sensational, often patriotic, fiction.
We recognize that “Washington’s Vision,” supposedly an event of 1777, is ill-suited to the cultural world of the 18th century, but is perfectly suited to the opening days of the Civil War: The “Vision” was supposedly recounted to the journalist on the suspiciously auspicious day of July 4th, and the angel who served as Washington’s Ghost of America Future was wearing a crown of stars spelling out the word “Union” – a critical concept in 1861, but one that would have had no meaning whatsoever in 1777.
We know that when the “Vision” was supposedly recounted to the journalist, there was no man bearing the name Anthony Sherman anywhere in the United States who was old enough to have been at Valley Forge, and that the only Revolutionary soldier known named Anthony Sherman had most definitely not been at Valley Forge with Washington and had died decades before the fictional Anthony Sherman supposedly recounted the story of “Washington’s Vision.”
The story’s original readers were not concerned about the literalness of the supposed history it related – that wasn’t what mattered. Its message that the American Union was heaven-blessed and destined to survive its peril in the Civil War and for all future time is what mattered. The piece became wildly popular throughout the country. I have documented its publication in scores of newspapers, and there is little reason to doubt that it appeared in hundreds of cases unknown to me.
Mormons were not immune to the charm of “Washington’s Vision.” We printed it in the Millennial Star, the Deseret News, and the Relief Society Magazine. The Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) have both published it multiple times. I’ve found it in community papers throughout the Mormon cultural region.
“Washington’s Vision” has made its most recent appearance this year, 2016, in a book published by Deseret Book, and one that, I have been told by correspondents, is being read and studied in Mormon book groups around the country. This book is Timothy Ballard’s The Washington Hypothesis, dedicated to the proposition that America has a divine origin and destiny, and that its first president consciously entered a covenant with heaven to establish the United States to nurture and sustain the Restored Church. “Washington’s Vision” is entered in support of that premise.
Something has happened to “Washington’s Vision” however, between its 1861 appearance and its 2016 telling by Mr. Ballard: While its original readers recognized it as allegory, it is offered today as a literal, historical event. Anthony Sherman, the fictional Revolutionary War soldier, is introduced as a historical personage. Washington’s Vision is presented as an actual occurrence. Mr. Ballard points to a minor male angel accompanying the major female one in the tale, and identifies him as the Angel Moroni, herald of the Restoration. Or rather he doesn’t explicitly identify the character, but dances archly around the identification in his book and in its publicity:
“Did you know that angels likely appeared to George Washington at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777? Was the angel Moroni one of them?”
and:
“I cannot read this account without thinking of the biblical prophecy of the angel found in Revelation … ‘And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach …”
These, and other fancy footwork and rhetorical questions, may provide wiggle room for the author to say he was “only speculating,” but embedded as they are in a narrative heavy with the overlap of divine direction and American destiny, readers cannot be blamed for reading this account as if Mr. Ballard had openly stated his claim that Moroni appeared to George Washington.
In offering The Washington Hypothesis as an example of irresponsible history, please understand that I do not hold Mr. Ballard personally responsible for the corruption of American history or what for me is more serious, his introduction of Moroni into the account. (Imagine the reader who is persuaded that Moroni did appear to George Washington, then learns that the entire “Washington’s Vision” account is fictional. What will he then conclude about Joseph Smith’s claim that Moroni appeared to him?)
But I don’t hold Mr. Ballard accountable. He is not a historian either by training or by natural gift. He is a man whose patriotic fervor is bound tightly to his religious faith, and he naturally seeks ties between patriotism and religion that he presupposes must be there.
No, the entity that is responsible for this irresponsible history is, I believe, his publisher.
The book carries Deseret Book’s standard disclaimer: “This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book.”
But someone at Deseret Book recognized that something was “off” about The Washington Hypothesis, whether or not he could identify the faultiness of Mr. Ballard’s evidence (which, by the way, extends far beyond the single example of “Washington’s Vision.” His “Indian Prophecy” chapter, and others, are just as guilty of mistaking literary romance for actual history.) Someone wanted even greater distance than usual between Deseret Book and the claims of this book, and has added a “Publisher’s Note” warning the reader that “A hypothesis is not a statement of fact, though it often reads like one. …”
In this gripping book, Timothy Ballard has shared many of those facts and drawn some fascinating conclusions from them. Whether or not you come to the same conclusions – whether you support his “hypothesis” or not – we believe you will gain a new appreciation for the events that shaped America as a nation and for the greatness of its first president, George Washington.
That is a remarkable, perhaps unprecedented, statement by Deseret Book, one that few readers will make the effort to analyze. But it is cleverly worded, a disclaimer that would allow Deseret Book, if pressed, to deny responsibility for any problems with the book:
This isn’t necessarily factual …
We warned you this needed additional research …
It’s a conjecture only …
These are the author’s conclusions — the responsibility is his, not ours …
His conclusions are shaky enough that you might not share them …
His “hypothesis” is shaky enough that you might not support it …
Don’t blame us. It’s all Ballard’s doing. We are totally innocent of any wrongdoing in publishing and promoting this stuff for money, and we really don’t care about anything else — including dragging Moroni into the swamp. Our standard disclaimer is for legal purposes. This additional disclaimer is to salve somebody’s conscience by pretending to warn you that this material is unreliable.
But hey, we know it’s going to sell, so what else really matters?
These days, I’m always happy to find a Washington hypothesis that I can safely ignore. Thanks, Ardis.
I’ve yet to be lured in by LDS historical fiction no matter how many times I hear about it on Fast Sunday. It reads as if this book won’t be the apple causing me to fall.
Apparently, the taste for historical drek is very strong in the LDS community so it’s nice DB was able to hold its nose long enough to make some money off of it.
Real history can be pretty gripping. Sadly, in most cases, a gift for history and a gift for writing rarely go hand in hand. There are very few Barbara Tuchmanns.
I’ll just say, bravo.
faith-promoting story — Any story that makes you feel glad you’re a Mormon, even if you can’t bring yourself to believe it.
— Orson Scott Card, Saintspeak: A Mormon Dictionary (1980)
In all truth, though, this is mostly embarrassing, and I truly am surprised that Deseret Book choose to publish it.
Thanks for publishing your remarks. It’s important that there’s a counter-narrative somewhere for this Deseret Book-promoted nonsense.
(And by the way, I actually do blame Ballard. He’s an adult. He knew enough to couch his suppositions in language of deniability, and he’s clearly making a boatload of money off of this. That’s enough for me to lessen the amount of charitable indulgence that I feel for him.)
Superlative, as always. Thank you Ardis — your consistency and reliably moral voice is reassuring and inspiring. This review needs to be read by all Mormons who might be tempted by the fables in The Washington Hypothesis.
Ah yes, the Faith Biz.
“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” Isaiah 55: 1
Unfortunately, faith sells. It sells big.
Well done, Ardis.
Great. And I was just about done with my D-Books boycott on the Glenn Beck thing.
I just want to type a clapping emoji over and over and say “Bravo!”
Deseret Book is vile in their attempt to squeeze the LDS population for their few extra dollars to peddle anything that could be construed as faith promoting.
Deseret Book steers away from scholarly works because the Church’s own research shows that few of the Mormon populace actually care for well researched and footnoted history.
It’s a shame that God’s covenant people are being so easily duped, but it cannot be a surprise when “the Lord’s” own bookstore is dispensing doctrinal dribble.
Another post that cannot be too widely shared. Thanks, Ardis.
My teenage daughters and many of their friends who enjoy such books and shows as Harry Potter, Pokemon, Dr Who, etc. belong to clubs, websites, and Facebook groups where they have fun writing “Fan Fiction” stories that take place in the various stories that they enjoy and then they share them with each other. THAT is what Timothy Ballard does, he writes US history Fan Fiction.
Sadly, this is part of the reason that our real history is not well enough known. There is too much appetite for easy, comfortable answers.
This is excellent. Thank you, Ardis.
I don’t really have anything to add, but I want to second what everybody has said.
I’ll confess that I haven’t had anybody gush over this book to me (though likely people who know me know I’m not the target demographic for it), but if some poor soul asks my opinion of it, I know where I’ll send that person!
Thanks for publishing this review.
Thank you for your work, this review, as well as your very interesting blog. Your research is a source of wonder and your methodology resides somewhere between a “breath of fresh air” and an “anchor in the storm.”
There was a time when I thought publication by Deseret Book was some sort of indicator of reliability. Seriously, if I read some bit of crazy doctrine, I’d be skeptical if the back of the book said “Bookcraft,” but if it said “Deseret Book,” well, the Church wouldn’t let them publish anything too “out there,” right? They’ve been working really hard to prove me wrong about that.
I think I’ll stick with the null hypothesis.
Oh, but as the DB blurb said, it will give you a greater appreciation for George Washington and the events that didn’t actually happen in his life but which, if they had, would be as inspiring as the best of Parson Weems. Someone get me an axe, and I’ll chop down the blasted cherry tree myself.
Thanks Ardis
Nice work, Ardis. You’re good at this.
Hmmm. I’ve been shopping around my book-length manuscript to publishers for years. (The one about how contemplating the Adam God Theory when visiting the Pyramids at Giza while doused in essential oils helps one know the LDS Church is true). Sadly, to date I’ve had no takers.
Sounds like it’s time to give Deseret Book a try!
“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies? … [Some say that] because one repudiates the false he stands in danger of weakening, perhaps losing the truth. I have no fear of such results. I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.” (Brigham Henry Roberts, Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story 363)
“I believe it is good to investigate and prove all principles that come before me. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, and reject that which is evil, no matter what guise it may come in. I think if we, as ‘Mormons,’ hold principles that cannot be sustained by the Scriptures and by good sound reason and philosophy, the quicker we part with them the better, no matter who believes in them or who does not. In every principle presented to us, our first inquiry should be, ‘Is it true?’ ‘Does it emanate from God?’ If He is its Author it can be sustained just as much as any other truth in natural philosophy; if false it should be opposed and exposed just as much as any other error. Hence upon all such matters we wish to go back to first principles.” (John Taylor JD 13:15.)
Very nice, Ardis.
This is really the story of any urban legend. If it sounds too good to be true, or too “perfect” to be true, it probably is. Not always. Occasionally, you get some story that seems to be in this mold, and really is backed up by historical facts (like the Christmas truce of 1914). But generally, when you hear a story like this, you want to do a little extra research before you buy into it.
Ardis, I must pass on the comment my good Quaker friend MJ made when I shared this article on Facebook. She said, “Without exception I’ve enjoyed the LDS articles you post, and in this case the comments also.”
I have invited her to join us. She’d make a wonderful Keepaninny.
Thanks for this review! So wonderful to have the historical notes to temper the imagination. As a once-published Deseret Book author myself, however, I do have to respond to the idea that Ballard is making “a boatload of money” off his book. Typically, a DB author would receive about 10% royalty off sales price (often discounted from listed price), which would be about $2/book in this case. A real DB hit sells about 5000 copies. I don’t know how many he’s sold, but assuming that he got a few thousand dollars off this effort, paid taxes and tithing, and bought a bunch of copies to hand out to friends and family (I only got 5 free as part of my deal), he hasn’t made even as much as a few weeks’ salary paycheck for the effort.
Ballard has sold multiples of 5,000 copies — this book is still ranking about 23,400 at Amazon, more than a year post publication. He may not be making a yacht, but he’s made considerably more than the leaky rowboat that most Deseret books bring.
(To be clear, I have no objection to authors and their publishers earning money from writing — far from it. Making money from a knowingly unworthy effort or by deceiving the gullible is something else.)
Ardis, I’ve read the Publisher’s Note several times, each time hoping I’d missed something. It doesn’t just excuse lying, it seems to encourage it.
“Typically, a DB author would receive about 10% royalty off sales price (often discounted from listed price), which would be about $2/book in this case.”
acw, that is interesting information. I have been trying to see a copy of a db author contract for years now. This sounds like it is NOT standard for the US book publishing industry.
Typical terms for trade books (i.e., non academic) are 10% of LIST price, unless the price is discounted more than 45-50%. A royalty based on sales price is going to give you significantly less.
Now I am really curious to know if you have read the Lincoln Hypothesis.
No, JRL, I haven’t. The only reason I noticed The Washington Hypothesis is because years earlier, I had found “Washington’s Vision” in some Church magazines, dug into it, and published a post about it with no connection whatsoever to Ballard. Then early last year, I tripped over some publicity for Ballard’s new book on an online glurge magazine, and updated my earlier post a bit.
I don’t particularly have it out for Ballard and don’t expect to read any further nonsense from him. But I do believe in visions, and angels, and in the historical reality of Moroni, and seeing my faith prostituted for money this way was … irritating.
Are there any scholarly reviews of The Lincoln Hypothesis?
I don’t know, Chris, but I doubt it. A review would hardly be worth a scholar’s time.
I don’t know if that’s true. I’m a scholar in another field (economics), and there is something to be said for public scholarship. The current anti-trade and protectionism in both parties is denounced by economists on both sides of the aisle. The proliferation of these ideas among the citizenry is a failure of the economic discipline.
Excuse me, Chris, but I have absolutely no idea what your comment has to do with this particular discussion. In any case, I cannot refer you to any scholarly review of any of Timothy Ballard’s books. None of them contain the sort of work that a scholar would be apt to spend serious time and effort on, in part because it would take so much effort to go point by point through the book to outline its manifold problems, and in part because true believers are so notoriously difficult to persuade to examine actual evidence. (Cf. any of your favorite political or scientific conspiracy theories.)
I came across “Washington’s Vision” years before Ballard included it in this farce, and I investigated and posted my findings as a blog post in the same way as I have posted nearly 7,000 other posts on Mormon history, both meaningful and trivial. I revived that post when LDSLiving began to promote Ballard’s hypothetical history using “Washington’s Vision” as its lead-in. Had I been previously unfamiliar with the story, I would not have bothered to point out how silly it is merely as a critique of Ballard’s silly work, any more than I have done more than roll my eyes at the “Indian Prophecy” in his next chapter. His books just aren’t worth the time and attention of scholarship.
Thanks for posting these comments, Ardis! Comedian Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness” to describe what may be going on here. Check out this interesting article about the myth of Sir Ernest Shackelton’s ad – an example of truthiness: http://web.archive.org/web/20120507212328/http://www.andygreencreativity.com:80/2012/05/the-myth-of-sir-ernest-shackleton%E2%80%99s-ad-%E2%80%93-an-example-of-truthiness/
Beautifully done, Ardis.
I find that there are some Latter-day Saints on the margins who, perhaps unwittingly, do harm to their own faith tradition.