tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post896611129198973187..comments2023-08-16T00:25:03.236-07:00Comments on have me pompeii your town: Institional Secrecy.Chris Almondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13107791774450498377noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-14391581430840128832010-06-13T14:05:24.281-07:002010-06-13T14:05:24.281-07:00Well, I think I was being too broad with the word ...Well, I think I was being too broad with the word context. I was using it to refer both to the broader societal "context" as well as the topical "context" unique to the Kinderhook plates for example.<br /><br />As for whether to delve into the Kinderhook thing... I'm not sure we want to hijack the thread with the tangent. It may be I know something you don't. Or it may be that you know something I don't.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-40368488132094556732010-06-13T11:54:02.755-07:002010-06-13T11:54:02.755-07:00I hope it didn't sound as if I were saying ...I hope it didn't sound as if I were saying 'context' doesn't matter in those instances, because I do believe it does and i imagine this is what you are referring to. <br />I suppose I should have been more clear by what I meant by historical context not mattering.<br />While understanding the specific context around those events might help some people be more comfortable with them, I do not believe the broad historical context is particularly relevant even if the specific context might be. What say ye?<br />While I'd like to think I'm fairly familiar with the context around the Kinderhook plates, I'm curious why you feel it to be a non-issue. Perhaps you are aware of something I am not?Chris Almondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13107791774450498377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-54386284854542777202010-06-13T11:39:59.522-07:002010-06-13T11:39:59.522-07:00"Historical context doesn't make the issu..."Historical context doesn't make the issues with the Book of Abraham any less difficult.<br />Historical Context doesn't make the Kinderhook Plates any less difficult.<br />Historical context doesn't make the problems with the book of Mormon any more palatable."<br /><br />I think I disagree with this. The problem is that people only get a portion of the historical context, and then THINK they have the whole thing. But they only have a portion - and usually (it seems on the Internet) only a negative portion.<br /><br />I've read up on the Kinderhook Plates, for instance. And I consider it to be pretty much a non-issue once you know the whole story and where the quotes were coming from and what the context was.<br /><br />It's only when you encounter a bunch of decontextualized Joseph Smith quotes (or alleged Joseph Smith quotes) that you get such a "problematic" picture.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-73128873273450070282010-06-13T10:41:09.882-07:002010-06-13T10:41:09.882-07:00I do think people should be more educated about ho...I do think people should be more educated about how messy and uncomfortable history is. I have no romantic notions of it at all. I believe that as a society we are leaps and bounds more moral than even one hundred years ago when people could be imprisoned or drug by a horse for not supporting the war.<br /><br />But if anyone is to blame for this false impression many have of the past, shouldn't the Church be as well? They are the one's claiming the world is worse now than it has ever been. They are the one's propagating a glossy view of their own history.Chris Almondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13107791774450498377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-53491226292675708142010-06-13T10:36:04.900-07:002010-06-13T10:36:04.900-07:00Seth.
I would like to thank you for your thoughtfu...Seth.<br />I would like to thank you for your thoughtful comment.<br />You make an interesting point which I agree with to a degree and also disagree with.<br />I do agree that context is important to understanding history and one should not judge an individual from the past based on modern standards. I agree that many Americans and people in general have a poor historical memory.<br /><br />However, I think that most of what people find disturbing from Lds Church history is not made more palatable with an understanding of <br />context.<br /><br />From my experience, the aspects of Lds history which are most challenging for members are religions in nature and primarily challenging because it contradicts official publications and one's concept of how religion should be.<br /><br />You give the example of doctors dueling around the time of Joseph Smith. While this might help people understand some actions of Church members and leaders around that time, it doesn't help much for people who are concerned about issues such as the witnesses of the Book of Mormon revealing they did not actually, physically see the Golden Plates or the temple ceremony being based on the Freemasons ritual.<br />Historical context doesn't make the issues with the Book of Abraham any less difficult.<br />Historical Context doesn't make the Kinderhook Plates any less difficult.<br />Historical context doesn't make the problems with the book of Mormon any more palatable.<br /><br /><br />In fact, in many instances, knowing the historical context of certain aspects of Church history often makes those aspects more damning.<br /><br />The Church and Church members often teach that Moral truth is eternal and unchanging. Yet, studying Mormon history and the surrounding US history shows much of Mormon morality is based on cultural context.<br />While one might help explain Brigham Young's having taught it is the law of God that a black person never marry a white person as being a a product of his time that also illustrates that he was not inspired and just influenced by his time and culture.<br /><br /><br />If God was truly inspiring men like Brigham young, wouldn't it be far more valuable to reveal important ethics such as racial equality rather than knowledge of the afterlife?<br /><br />Consider the Baha'i Faith. It arose around the same time time as Mormism, in a culture far more oppressive. (the middle east). Yet, from the get-go, it taught racial and gender equality. This is what we should expect of prophets. To rise above their time and culture and teach a morality which people may not come to on their own for quite a long time, not to be catching up with the zeitgeist decades later.<br />While certain aspects of Mormon history are understandable within a certain historical context many of the big issues are not. And while one might feel sympathy for certain motivations, when it comes to evidence of the Lds Church being a divine institution, historical context provides evidence of that is man made, a product of it's time.Chris Almondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13107791774450498377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-62454443168056189892010-06-11T09:38:06.714-07:002010-06-11T09:38:06.714-07:00Sorry, didn't grab the "subscribe" e...Sorry, didn't grab the "subscribe" email button.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-73902561652411859022010-06-11T09:35:44.056-07:002010-06-11T09:35:44.056-07:00The problem with Mormon history is that it takes p...The problem with Mormon history is that it takes place in a context of general societal ignorance about history.<br /><br />History is something of a hobby for me and one thing I've found is that history is almost always messy and ugly just as often as it is inspiring. That's true of everyone. Even the greatest heroes in world history had some skeletons in the closet - in fact, they usually did.<br /><br />How many people know that FDR - our president during World War II, was racist enough to be unelectable today, for instance? How many people know that Abraham Lincoln actually did consider black people inferior, and that most abolitionists of the time were actually violently opposed to mixed-race marriages?<br /><br />How many Americans know what monogamy in the 1800s was like before they rush off to criticize 1800s polygamy?<br /><br />Americans suck at history. They have little historical memory and live almost wholly in the present - under their own contemporary prejudices and assumptions.<br /><br />In short - they have no broader context for placing isolated historical incidents like the Battle of Gettysburg, or the Mountain Meadows Massacre. They approach it wholly from a 21st century paradigm. When they judge the Mountain Meadows Massacre, for instance, they judge it the same way they would if the LDS Stake President in Cedar City had ordered the slaughter of a high school field trip on the way to band-camp last week. No one bothers to try and figure out why the Mormons were paranoid and scared enough to do something like that. No one bothers to place it in a broader context of frontier violence of that era.<br /><br />Same thing with Joseph Smith's marriages. No one wants to contextualize them in the broader marital culture in the US at the time. No one takes a hard look at what teenage girls were really like back then (generally, they were more mature, capable, and tough than most 30 year old American women today).<br /><br />But here's the problem:<br /><br />Americans are historical ignoramuses. They rarely go in for any US history beyond the purely superficial level (often highly propagandized, whitewashed, and abbreviated in high school textbooks).<br /><br />Yet when confronted with Mormon history, they are suddenly trying to go in-depth about the Mormon historical incidents. But they do this without any context within which to place the events.<br /><br />And of course, the result is that it all looks quite horrid.<br /><br />In short, Mormon history finds itself as the sole representative of its time period for people ignorant of anything else that happened in that era.<br /><br />What is even more unfortunate is that this particular era of US history was pretty ugly in general.<br /><br />Did you know that about the time Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, it was common occurrence for physicians in New Orleans to duel each other to the death over professional medical disputes? One pair of quarreling physicians even dueled each other in the presence of the patient on his sick bed.<br /><br />This is only one example, but the early to mid 1800s weren't exactly a pleasant and civilized episode in our history.<br /><br />And somehow, Mormons have become the historical whipping boy for the entire era. Because we have become the visible representatives of a time the rest of America is trying its best to forget.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2632066603779000512.post-46612968465908562702010-06-10T19:58:40.135-07:002010-06-10T19:58:40.135-07:00I also knew of Joseph Smith's polygamy early o...I also knew of Joseph Smith's polygamy early on but don't remember where I learned it. What surprised me was the number of wives, the ages of some, and the circumstances under which some of the marriages took place.<br /><br />But I will vote for you running for more openness in the church.rickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01827221653664145239noreply@blogger.com