A previous post inartfully tried to flesh out my reticence to read biographies that tend to be critical of people otherwise admired and revered, especially of the Founding Fathers. I've spent the last few days still trying to puzzle through whether that reticence is proper.
How fortuitous, then, that I've been reading through Boyd K. Packer's book Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled. One of the talks included speaks almost directly on this issue, though admittedly his focus seems to be on church historians and their portrayals of church history and the prophets.
Here are a few of the quotes that seemed most illuminating from pages 106-109:
"Some things that are true are not very useful.
"Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things."
....
"Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of context of the historical period in which they lived.
"Anyone who was not previously acquainted with this historical figure (particularly anyone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.
....
"What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determine to convice everyone that the prophet was a man. We kenw that already. All of the propehts and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to convince us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man. "
Now, obviously the Founding Father's were not prophets, which makes me wonder if the caution even applies.
But then this quote from President Stephen L. Richards:
"If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pasttime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, it may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.
"This 'debunking,' we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known. If an historic character has made a great contribution to country and society, and if his name and his deeds have been used over the generations to foster high ideals of character and service, what good is to be accomplished by digging out of the past and exploiting weaknesses, which perhaps a generous contemporary public forgave and subdued? (Where is Wisdom? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955], p. 155.)
It's this last quote that seems so applicable, though I would probably qualify Elder Richards' statement with the provision that the laudatory things said about the great historical figures are true in the first place. (I'm not convinced he meant that we should continue to promote lies about historical figures even when those lies tend toward a favorable impression of them). In my mind, that's why Wilford Woodruff's vision of the Founding Father's appearing to him in the Temple and insisting their work be done becomes such a key point.
Anyway, I thought that worth sharing and would be interested in others' reaction.
Monday, January 30, 2006
On "Mormon Movies"
Apparently there was some LDS Film Festival recently in Utah. That would explain the recent flurry of articles on Mormon movies--and all the Richard Dutcher quotes.
Honestly, one of the questions in my mind lately is whether there should be "Mormon Movies" at all--maybe that's a silly question that no one but me thinks should be asked.
Dutcher's criticism that making "Mormon Movies" has made it possible for mediocre films to thrive--a point I think is true of many many LDS Musicians and Authors.
My problem with Dutcher though, one who frequently depicts mock priesthood ordinances in movies, might not be mediocrity so much (I've never seen any of his movies) but that his depictions of priesthood ordinances trifle with sacred things. The very title of his first movie made me uncomfortable, since it seemed he may be taking the Lord's name in vain.
Those potential problems are magnified in my mind when Dutcher brazenly shows off some of the "warts" of Mormonism and the LDS culture--all the while apparently unfettered by the need to "make more Mormons in the world" with his movies. I guess I'm not sure if that obligation, so eloquently put by Dutcher, is one that can simply be shaken off--and even if it can be, whether it should be. (Question: If Dutcher is really unconcerned with whether his films attract people to the Mormon faith, could there be eternal repercussions if his films actually turned would be investigators away? These are the kinds of things I think about).
When it comes down to it, Dutcher's comfort in displaying the warts of Mormonism, for instance just how foolish and stupid missionaries can be when they get together or live in the same apartment, were what made me uncomfortable about his first movie and kept me away from it.
This all leaves me wondering out loud if there can be a Mormon genre of movies that can be decidely Mormon and tastefully done. I guess I thought "The Other Side of Heaven" came closest to that, but maybe that's simply because I'm so fond of Elder Groberg's book (on which the movie was based), and the fact that the movie used a Toad the Wet Sprocket song in the trailer. I'm anxious to be enlightened.
Honestly, one of the questions in my mind lately is whether there should be "Mormon Movies" at all--maybe that's a silly question that no one but me thinks should be asked.
Dutcher's criticism that making "Mormon Movies" has made it possible for mediocre films to thrive--a point I think is true of many many LDS Musicians and Authors.
My problem with Dutcher though, one who frequently depicts mock priesthood ordinances in movies, might not be mediocrity so much (I've never seen any of his movies) but that his depictions of priesthood ordinances trifle with sacred things. The very title of his first movie made me uncomfortable, since it seemed he may be taking the Lord's name in vain.
Those potential problems are magnified in my mind when Dutcher brazenly shows off some of the "warts" of Mormonism and the LDS culture--all the while apparently unfettered by the need to "make more Mormons in the world" with his movies. I guess I'm not sure if that obligation, so eloquently put by Dutcher, is one that can simply be shaken off--and even if it can be, whether it should be. (Question: If Dutcher is really unconcerned with whether his films attract people to the Mormon faith, could there be eternal repercussions if his films actually turned would be investigators away? These are the kinds of things I think about).
When it comes down to it, Dutcher's comfort in displaying the warts of Mormonism, for instance just how foolish and stupid missionaries can be when they get together or live in the same apartment, were what made me uncomfortable about his first movie and kept me away from it.
This all leaves me wondering out loud if there can be a Mormon genre of movies that can be decidely Mormon and tastefully done. I guess I thought "The Other Side of Heaven" came closest to that, but maybe that's simply because I'm so fond of Elder Groberg's book (on which the movie was based), and the fact that the movie used a Toad the Wet Sprocket song in the trailer. I'm anxious to be enlightened.
Monday, January 23, 2006
On Washington
I just finished Joseph Ellis' book His Excellency, on the life of George Washington. The book comes after Ellis' review of the newly catalogued Washington papers, which apparently contain anything and everything left of what Washington wrote.
Admitteldy, I am not an avid book reader, and usually those books I do read are church books, Harry Potter, or most anything by C.S. Lewis. That said, it's been a goal of mine for some time to branch out, turn off the TV a little more frequently, and read more. This month long business trip of mine seemed like the perfect opportunity--especially once the "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Seinfeld" reruns no longer seemed like good company in my hotel rooms.
At any rate, I had some difficulty grappling with a "realistic" portrayal of George Washington. As the author himself admits, historians dealing with the founding usually fall into one of two camps: Those who practically deify the Founders (especially Washington) such that they could do no wrong, and those who villify them--finding them all to be power hungry, conniving, duplicitous, and racist. Washington again proves an easy target here--precisely because he took such great pains eliminate any evidence of his thoughts and feelings that bordered on being personal (for example, he had Martha burn all of their personal letters after he died)*. I suppose I am guilty of preferring the former treatment of the Founders (deifying them), mostly because of Wilford Woodruff's vision of the Founders appearing to him in the the temple (I forget which) wherein they nearly demanded their work be done. I think this information has been helpful when weighing the merits of certain accusations against them, but I realized recently it has lead me to virtually ignore anything that might reveal character defects.
Ellis' book does not shy away from Washington's apparent character deficiencies while reviewing his life: Washington's early letters reveal he was more ambitious than perhaps he even cared to admit, he was stern and unforgiving at times, even a bit arrogant, and was possibly a bit too fond of the wife of his friend (though no evidence of any indiscretion), and to modern day observers his passive opposition to slavery appears to lack the moral fortitude one would expect from the Father of Our Country. Ellis didn't seem to delight so much in Washington's weaknesses, though, as much as he saw them merely as a necessary part of understanding who Washington was.
Washington certainly comes off as flawed, in fact he comes off as an aggressive and stubborn commander of the Continental Army that at several points could have (and should have) lost the Revolutionary War. His greatest lesson, and the evidence of the moulding of his famous character, was learning to restrain his aggressive tendencies.
Even so, the weight of the evidence, at least presented in this book, reveals a man terribly concerned with propriety who knew from early on that people would hang on (and very likely preserve) his every word, and that he had become more of a symbol than a man and had to somehow be everything to everyone. He seemed to be in constant development in his mastery over his ambition, even if he did still seemed greatly concerned that future generations view him well.
In short, His Excellency tore down many of the glamourized images I had of Washington. I still found, though, plenty of reasons to revere him and his contributions to the founding of the United States of America. His steady leadership during rough times in the Revolutionary War, his surrender of his sword at Annapolis, MD once it was over, and his lack of an appetite for power and the limelight in his later years are but a few of the many things I find admirable. And perhaps most importantly, I do not find his life inconsistent with Wilford Woodruff's vision--where Washington presumably was one of the Founder's imploring that his work be done. In the end, I guess that's the standard against which I'm likely to judge any treatment of the life of Washington, or any of the other principle Founding Fathers.
*In fact, I started to read one book on Washington, by Forest McDonald, for a class at BYU that essentially sought to paint him as the greatest fake of all time. It was a perspective I could not tolerate, and admittedly never got beyond the introduction.
Admitteldy, I am not an avid book reader, and usually those books I do read are church books, Harry Potter, or most anything by C.S. Lewis. That said, it's been a goal of mine for some time to branch out, turn off the TV a little more frequently, and read more. This month long business trip of mine seemed like the perfect opportunity--especially once the "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Seinfeld" reruns no longer seemed like good company in my hotel rooms.
At any rate, I had some difficulty grappling with a "realistic" portrayal of George Washington. As the author himself admits, historians dealing with the founding usually fall into one of two camps: Those who practically deify the Founders (especially Washington) such that they could do no wrong, and those who villify them--finding them all to be power hungry, conniving, duplicitous, and racist. Washington again proves an easy target here--precisely because he took such great pains eliminate any evidence of his thoughts and feelings that bordered on being personal (for example, he had Martha burn all of their personal letters after he died)*. I suppose I am guilty of preferring the former treatment of the Founders (deifying them), mostly because of Wilford Woodruff's vision of the Founders appearing to him in the the temple (I forget which) wherein they nearly demanded their work be done. I think this information has been helpful when weighing the merits of certain accusations against them, but I realized recently it has lead me to virtually ignore anything that might reveal character defects.
Ellis' book does not shy away from Washington's apparent character deficiencies while reviewing his life: Washington's early letters reveal he was more ambitious than perhaps he even cared to admit, he was stern and unforgiving at times, even a bit arrogant, and was possibly a bit too fond of the wife of his friend (though no evidence of any indiscretion), and to modern day observers his passive opposition to slavery appears to lack the moral fortitude one would expect from the Father of Our Country. Ellis didn't seem to delight so much in Washington's weaknesses, though, as much as he saw them merely as a necessary part of understanding who Washington was.
Washington certainly comes off as flawed, in fact he comes off as an aggressive and stubborn commander of the Continental Army that at several points could have (and should have) lost the Revolutionary War. His greatest lesson, and the evidence of the moulding of his famous character, was learning to restrain his aggressive tendencies.
Even so, the weight of the evidence, at least presented in this book, reveals a man terribly concerned with propriety who knew from early on that people would hang on (and very likely preserve) his every word, and that he had become more of a symbol than a man and had to somehow be everything to everyone. He seemed to be in constant development in his mastery over his ambition, even if he did still seemed greatly concerned that future generations view him well.
In short, His Excellency tore down many of the glamourized images I had of Washington. I still found, though, plenty of reasons to revere him and his contributions to the founding of the United States of America. His steady leadership during rough times in the Revolutionary War, his surrender of his sword at Annapolis, MD once it was over, and his lack of an appetite for power and the limelight in his later years are but a few of the many things I find admirable. And perhaps most importantly, I do not find his life inconsistent with Wilford Woodruff's vision--where Washington presumably was one of the Founder's imploring that his work be done. In the end, I guess that's the standard against which I'm likely to judge any treatment of the life of Washington, or any of the other principle Founding Fathers.
*In fact, I started to read one book on Washington, by Forest McDonald, for a class at BYU that essentially sought to paint him as the greatest fake of all time. It was a perspective I could not tolerate, and admittedly never got beyond the introduction.
Monday, January 16, 2006
In Defense of Larry Miller
ESPN.com Page 2 today published an article on Larry Miller today (which will later appear in ESPN the Magazine) calling on David Stern to take action against Larry Miller for having pulled "Brokeback Mountain" from a movie theater he owns. You can read the article here.
After reading it myself, I emailed ESPN.com this response:
Dear ESPN Editors
LZ Granderson's article regarding Larry Miller and his decision to pull "Brokeback Mountain" from his own movie theater is out of line. I'm disappointed that the article was given such prominent location on ESPN.com's website.
To begin with, the article seems to assume that anyone who doesn't support a movie that favorably depicts (and thereby at least tacitly endorses) homosexual activity must therefore be homophobic. In essence, if you're not with them, you're against them (and you're homophobic).
My sense from the article is that author would classify everyone who: 1. doesn't agree with the message of "Brokeback Mountain" and 2. doesn't think it should broadcast in their home or business (for fear of being seen as endorsing the message) MUST therefore be homophobic. That's outrageous.
Larry Miller is a Mormon. The Mormon faith teaches that homosexual activity is contrary to God's plan and repugnant to Him. Even so, Mormons have been repeatedly counseled to treat those identifying themselves as homosexuals with kindness and respect.
Since it's well known that Miller is Mormon, the author of the article is essentially castigating Larry Miller for being an avowed Mormon and for not wanting a movie in his theater that openly promotes a message that is contrary to his belief system.
Miller has made no derogatory comments about or shown any hostility toward those who are avowedly homosexual. Not agreeing with the lifestyle (and not wanting to promote it) and yet being tolerant and respectful toward those who chose it cannot be considered bigotry--unless that term applies to whomever doesn't agree with them. That's apparently the meaning the author ascribes here.
As a result, In publishing the article, ESPN has given the author an opportunity to essentially make a back handed assault on Mormons--as well as any religion for that matter, where homosexuality is still considered a sin, regardless of how much these religions counsel their members to be tolerant and respectful of those who still chose that lifestyle. Perhaps the assault was intended.
This is to say nothing of the tenuous linkage of Larry Miller's simple decision to pull a movie from his theater to those NBA players who've been openly derogatory about homosexuals. Are they seriously supposed to be considered in the same breath? On the one hand you have people making comments ridiculing homosexuals and on the other you have someone who simply doesn't want to promote the lifestyle. I hope I am not the only one who sees the distinction here.
And is David Stern really supposed to have such power that he can dictate to owners what movies they are and are not allowed to pull from their theaters should they happen to own them? What about what movies they're allowed to see or not allowed to see?
Sincerely,
Aaron Clark
After reading it myself, I emailed ESPN.com this response:
Dear ESPN Editors
LZ Granderson's article regarding Larry Miller and his decision to pull "Brokeback Mountain" from his own movie theater is out of line. I'm disappointed that the article was given such prominent location on ESPN.com's website.
To begin with, the article seems to assume that anyone who doesn't support a movie that favorably depicts (and thereby at least tacitly endorses) homosexual activity must therefore be homophobic. In essence, if you're not with them, you're against them (and you're homophobic).
My sense from the article is that author would classify everyone who: 1. doesn't agree with the message of "Brokeback Mountain" and 2. doesn't think it should broadcast in their home or business (for fear of being seen as endorsing the message) MUST therefore be homophobic. That's outrageous.
Larry Miller is a Mormon. The Mormon faith teaches that homosexual activity is contrary to God's plan and repugnant to Him. Even so, Mormons have been repeatedly counseled to treat those identifying themselves as homosexuals with kindness and respect.
Since it's well known that Miller is Mormon, the author of the article is essentially castigating Larry Miller for being an avowed Mormon and for not wanting a movie in his theater that openly promotes a message that is contrary to his belief system.
Miller has made no derogatory comments about or shown any hostility toward those who are avowedly homosexual. Not agreeing with the lifestyle (and not wanting to promote it) and yet being tolerant and respectful toward those who chose it cannot be considered bigotry--unless that term applies to whomever doesn't agree with them. That's apparently the meaning the author ascribes here.
As a result, In publishing the article, ESPN has given the author an opportunity to essentially make a back handed assault on Mormons--as well as any religion for that matter, where homosexuality is still considered a sin, regardless of how much these religions counsel their members to be tolerant and respectful of those who still chose that lifestyle. Perhaps the assault was intended.
This is to say nothing of the tenuous linkage of Larry Miller's simple decision to pull a movie from his theater to those NBA players who've been openly derogatory about homosexuals. Are they seriously supposed to be considered in the same breath? On the one hand you have people making comments ridiculing homosexuals and on the other you have someone who simply doesn't want to promote the lifestyle. I hope I am not the only one who sees the distinction here.
And is David Stern really supposed to have such power that he can dictate to owners what movies they are and are not allowed to pull from their theaters should they happen to own them? What about what movies they're allowed to see or not allowed to see?
Sincerely,
Aaron Clark
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Drive Thru Tree Street
On my way from Eureka, CA to Lakeport, CA today I drove the 101 South. The drive took me through some beautiful scenes with some giant Redwoods. This got me thinking of that HUGE Redwood that I've seen pictures of (which at this point I can't remember if it was real or not) that apparently had a two lane highway running through the trunk.
Naturally, then, I was intrigued by an exit that proffered "Drive Thru Tree Street." I had some time, so I pulled off the road, searching for the Tree I'd seen in pictures. After following the signs I was directed to a park (a forest park) that promised to hold the "Drive Thru Tree." After driving in, and foolishly thinking I could see the tree for free, I pulled up to a booth where the attendant demanded $5.00 before I could see the tree.
I wasn't happy about the $5.00, but I'd come too far in now not to see the tree, so I handed the money over. "He's just about a 1/4 mile in" the attendant said. I drove forward cautiously--especially since I'm using a rental car. My anticipation grew with each turn around the bend.
Imagine my disappointment then when, while envisioning the huge tree that fit a two lane highway through it, I found that the "Drive Thru Tree" only had a 6 x 6'9" hole. It looked big enough to fit a Mini-Cooper through it, but not much else. I still thought about testing the rental car on it, but realized but kept envisioning the side mirrors getting clipped off. It was the biggest tree I'd ever seen to be sure, but still nothing compared to the mammoth I'd envisioned.
Once I realized I'd been had, I hardly stopped the car. This despite the gift shop only yards from the tree. The gift shop is always the red flag.
I left the "park" feeling dirty, cursing the tree, and feeling almost as embarrassed as I did when I realized a British thief had taken my $400 on eBay after dangling a laptop she would never ship.
Perhaps the worst part was realizing that I can't imagine any situation where I wouldn't have paid the $5. Surely they call them "traps" for a reason.
Naturally, then, I was intrigued by an exit that proffered "Drive Thru Tree Street." I had some time, so I pulled off the road, searching for the Tree I'd seen in pictures. After following the signs I was directed to a park (a forest park) that promised to hold the "Drive Thru Tree." After driving in, and foolishly thinking I could see the tree for free, I pulled up to a booth where the attendant demanded $5.00 before I could see the tree.
I wasn't happy about the $5.00, but I'd come too far in now not to see the tree, so I handed the money over. "He's just about a 1/4 mile in" the attendant said. I drove forward cautiously--especially since I'm using a rental car. My anticipation grew with each turn around the bend.
Imagine my disappointment then when, while envisioning the huge tree that fit a two lane highway through it, I found that the "Drive Thru Tree" only had a 6 x 6'9" hole. It looked big enough to fit a Mini-Cooper through it, but not much else. I still thought about testing the rental car on it, but realized but kept envisioning the side mirrors getting clipped off. It was the biggest tree I'd ever seen to be sure, but still nothing compared to the mammoth I'd envisioned.
Once I realized I'd been had, I hardly stopped the car. This despite the gift shop only yards from the tree. The gift shop is always the red flag.
I left the "park" feeling dirty, cursing the tree, and feeling almost as embarrassed as I did when I realized a British thief had taken my $400 on eBay after dangling a laptop she would never ship.
Perhaps the worst part was realizing that I can't imagine any situation where I wouldn't have paid the $5. Surely they call them "traps" for a reason.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
An Extended Hiatus
We made it back safely from Utah yesterday, though not without experiencing the slow crawl that can make up the drive from Las Vegas to San Bernadino. What should have been a 2-3 hour drive took over 5 as we waded our way through bumper to bumper traffic for over 200 miles.
Now that I'm back, I'll be leaving again. Work will take me to Northern California for the next two weeks, where I'll be on the road visiting the nether parts of the state. There isn't any part of this trip that I'm not loathing, except for the fact that all of my expenses will be reimbursed. It tears at me that I'll be away for so long. All the more because as soon as I get back from Northern CA, I'll be leaving after a day or two for Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming for similar adventures.
Hopefully after another two weeks they'll let me come home for good.
All this means that I'm not sure what kind of time I'll have to make any posts, since I'm going to be scrambling as it is traveling between locations. But if I do have time to post, that surely would be a good sign. So let's hope for that.
Now that I'm back, I'll be leaving again. Work will take me to Northern California for the next two weeks, where I'll be on the road visiting the nether parts of the state. There isn't any part of this trip that I'm not loathing, except for the fact that all of my expenses will be reimbursed. It tears at me that I'll be away for so long. All the more because as soon as I get back from Northern CA, I'll be leaving after a day or two for Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming for similar adventures.
Hopefully after another two weeks they'll let me come home for good.
All this means that I'm not sure what kind of time I'll have to make any posts, since I'm going to be scrambling as it is traveling between locations. But if I do have time to post, that surely would be a good sign. So let's hope for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)