Comments on: Telling the Truth about the Past

By: Bruce Crow

Bruce Crow — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:17:05 +0000

But, when the story isn’t complete, we can’t draw any conclusions from it.

But people draw conclusions with incomplete information all the time. The rub is that some people try to lead you into drawing the conclusion that supports their agenda by cherry picking pieces of the story. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate their agenda, but it isn’t telling the truth either.

Telling the truth means being open with all the important pieces of the story even if they don’t support your agenda. Then you have to explain why you are still holding to your agenda in the light of all the evidence. But that is another discussion.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:49:05 +0000

Mel, I was glad to see the relatively recent Turley article on MMM in the Ensign for that reason.

By: Mel

Mel — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:48:28 +0000

The entire point of studying history is to learn from the past. If we deliberately tell only part of the story (which usually means one side), we are incapable of learning the truth.
A classic of Utah history is the Mountain Meadows Massacre. What would prompt people do such a thing? What lessons can we draw from it today? But, when the story isn’t complete, we can’t draw any conclusions from it. The victims might as well have died in vain.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:24:57 +0000

We’ll have to agree to disagree, Ardis, I believe both authors have experience in historical research, and the article itself is an interesting overview of various methods of doing history. It is one of the best articles on Church history I’ve read. In my top 5 for sure.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:51:38 +0000

Hmmm. I’m afraid I’ll have to pass on any substantive evaluation of the article, BHodges. Neither author is an historian, neither evidently appreciates the practical realities of producing history, and between them they don’t appear to approve of Mormon historical writing in general. Besides, they use too many big words for simple-minded me to be sure I understand them. I’ll have to leave it to a philosopher like you to critique.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:53:50 +0000

That would be cool, Ardis. I strongly recommend everyone here to check out a source I recently re-read that dI think provides some overall context to the discussion we are having here. David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson, "Advocacy and Inquiry in the Writing of Latter-day Saint History," BYU Studies, Vol. 31:2 (1991), 1-41. The authors discuss different approaches to history, it's a meta-discussion on method, goals, shortcomings, and advantages to different approaches. I would especially be interested to know what Ardis, Paul, and other more active historians in their own right think of the piece.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:40:33 +0000

I have a pleasant fantasy of restoring the old “Know Your Religion”-format circuit of traveling speakers, only this time using speakers who were qualified to present historical topics in an interesting, accessible, faith-compatible, candid, professional way. 20th century European Mormonism would have a place in a season’s program like that, especially to address the occasional controversies.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:29:56 +0000

I’m surprised that people understood my sleep-deprived ramblings on my comment last night.

I think really the tension that we feel is that many of us (Keepaninnies and others) have a passion for history, especially LDS history. Many times in Gos Doc and Priesthood/RS classes there are people who are passionate about other topics rather than history. For them “Our Heritage” is more than enough. It’s sanitized and succinct. And that’s the problem we face.

I think too, people don’t appreciate the complexities of LDS history. They want it to be in black and white. Adding history and building testimonies are not mutually exclusive. But it can be challenging when members are so steeped in the “Our Heritage” type of LDS history, not realizing it can be complicated. (I hope I didn’t offend anyone who likes “Our Heritage”.)

Bruce Crow: I think you describe the problem well with devoting a whole lesson in seminary (or institute) to messy historical issues. Locally, our “institute” teacher is a member of our unit called by the stake to teach the class. To be frank, she does not have the background in Church history. It’s basically read the manual warm and fuzzy account. On the other hand, I know that I would probably scare a lot of the institute students away.

I wonder about a stake fireside. Here again, there is an issue of expertise. There are two people in our stake who have PhDs in history and have done their doctoral research on LDS topics. The problem is, we’ve both done topics on 20th Century European Mormonism. I’d feel inadequate trying to tackle plural marriage or the Danites. And, unfortunately, I think for many that would be too much “non-faith promoting” history.

So…I just don’t know.

By: john f.

john f. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:40:50 +0000

We should always be building testimonies when teaching in Church — not sure why “adding in history” (as if it’s something alien to the topic) would or should detract from building testimonies.

By: Bruce Crow

Bruce Crow — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:18:06 +0000

Steve, my wife cringes sometimes when I teach GD and add history. But I try to do so with an agenda; to let people know that church history is messy, AND to build testimonies! I can have an agenda because I’m the GD teacher. But I can still be historically acurate.

When I was in seminary we had an hour long seession on Mountain Meadows. Looking back they got many things wrong. It was a good try, but not everyone can attend seminary. Maybe the compromise is a Stake Fireside; it is at church but not during church. Maybe bring in an expert from another Stake if you need to.