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delve into the past of such a man, discover, it may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the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.
2 comments:
As you might expect, I tend to disagree with your thoughts on biographies.
In response to Stephen L. Richards final [rhetorical] question, I would say: "Certainly exploitation of weakness is a negative activity (by definition); but free of exploitation, there is much good to be accomplished by learning the truth."
President Packer may think that "some things that are true are not very useful." That may be accurate. It is probably a useless truth to all of us that my telephone has exactly 32 buttons on it.
The more important question is: are some things that are true counterproductive? The answer can only be no, since the gospel is consistent with (in a more abstract sense, synonymous with) all truth. Of course, you get into tricky issues here about what we mean by "truth," but I will ignore those for now.
So, personally, I think the more accurate statement would be: "Some methods of presenting or analyzing truth are not very useful, and can even be counter-productive."
As a quick case study: Does it do people any good to believe (as some in the Church do) that Christopher Columbus was more or less a holy man?
On the plus side, it might, for instance, strengthen someone's testimony in the Book of Mormon.
On the minus side, it might cause the person to be thought of as ignorant in much of the rest of society.
What is to be gained or lost by exposing Columbus's character attributes such as those that we might today classify as racism and egomania?
The potential loss appears great. Perhaps one would even lose her testimony of the Book of Mormon.
If that happened, however, it wouldn't (in my opinion) have been a real testimony in the first place. Rather, it would have been a belief grounded in falsehood.
A real testimony would not be shaken by truthful facts. In fact, I think it would be strengthened. One sees, for instance, that the Spirit can work through even those who were not by any stretch of the imagination perfect -- just as it does today in our visibly imperfect local leaders. It encourages one to try to understand context and to forgive -- not just historically, but even in the case of the teenage girl in the ward who just had a baby. And it helps us to distinguish between which of a person's actions were motivated by the Spirit and which were not -- helping us to learn better how to understand the Spirit in our own lives.
The solution to the problems that Presidents Packer and Richards present is, in my humble opinion, not selectively to ignore facts, but rather to maintain a balanced and contextual view, realizing that facts viewed independently of countervailing facts or taken out of context are not "truth."
We are counseled not to gratify our pride or our vain ambition. When we live and believe in the gospel, we need not hide from the truth nor try to cover our own faults. Ignorance may be superficially blissful, but is not compatible with the deeper happiness the truth of the gospel brings.
Get a blog, Dave.
Post a Comment