The Church recently carried an article on its Newsroom about a new history of the "mountain meadows massacre", arguably the worst event in Mormon history. The Church gave the three LDS authors unprecedented access to Church archives--archives that other scholars believed would implicate Brigham Young. In the end they found no evidence to support the prophet's involvment. The research for this book is impressive. It took them about 7 years to complete it. Just to give you an idea, the reasearch and writing process for my dissertation will take about 3-4 years. But I'm only one person, this project involved three experienced historians. In a video interview the three authors spoke about why they decided to write the book. Richard E. Turley, Jr (the Assistant Church Historian) said that the driving purspose for writing the book had to do with healing: "Only by facing this head-on, directly, could we finally expect to get to a point where real healing could take place." This is important. Since the Massacre, many Mormons have tried to forget about it, push it aside and try not to confront it. Yet it has always been the proverbial elephant in the room (among other elephants). As an historian, I think there is a great lesson in Bro. Turley's comments. It is just as dammaging to cover up our past as a people as it is to cover up our individual pasts from the Lord. Individually, we must all confront the scars of our past lest they continue to haunt us in the present.
Here's a link if you want more info.: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/book-provides-an-unflinching-look-at-mountain-meadows-massacre
5 comments:
I remember reading about this research a few months ago in the Ensign. It will be really interesting to read. I'm glad we don't hide from the past- it is also a true reminder that the church is perfect- but we people are not! Thanks Cami!
I also am very glad the book is coming out; I think it's great that faithful latter-day saints are giving the event this analysis.
I do have this to say about "covering up" (and please don't think I'm ascribing any views to you which you don't hold, or even disagreeing with you; these are just some thoughts I have on the topic): I think history is misleadingly characterized as a process of simply going into the data and retrieving from it a collection of objective facts which are then re-presented without bias in historical works. There are so many "facts" in the world about any event or person that one could never hope to write an "objective" history. For example, imagine we had access to information about Joseph Smith's toenails for his entire life - their density, rate of growth, time of trimming, etc. We could write a book on the topic, rightly claiming that we were publishing never-before seen information about the life of Joseph Smith. But such a history would fall dead from the press, and rightly so. It would be utterly un-illuminating. It would not tell us what was "really" important about the man.
But, once we start talking about what is "really" important in someone's life (and commit ourselves to include those and only those kinds of facts in our history), we get into all kinds of difficult problems, for what are the really important facts? Historians today (and the public more generally) write their histories over against a set of concerns and values which is very different from those of yesterday or, presumably, tomorrow. This isn't to say that there is no truth, it is to say that the work of selection and emphasis of facts will always work within a range of concerns and values, and these will inevitably change. Take something like "authenticity" as a value. This value has become much more salient and important in our age than it ever has been before (to society generally), presumably because we live in an age in which the good has been privatized - that is, particular persons can have accounts of what the good life is, but there is no agreed-upon notion of what a good life in general should include. Except, of course, authenticity - so, whatever, you do, do it with (the familiar list of cliches) "passion", "drive"; "live your own life", "be yourself", etc. We see this everywhere, but it is a relatively new phenomenon (on this scale).
So, getting back to the point. I don't think the church as a whole or individual people need to go out of their way to expose and bring to light the bad things church members have done in the past. Yes, Mountain Meadows was absolutely awful, and we shouldn't cover it up, but what about all the other sins church members have committed over time? Do we need to have a "church registry of sin" where we catalog each adultery, each robbery, each murder committed by members of the church, either singly or in groups? (I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting this) If we don't do this, are we covering up? How big a part of our collective narrative as a church do our sins need to be?
Well Shawn, I see why you and Danny get along so well...he sounds just like you! I can't wait to read their research. I ahdn't heard about Mountain Meadows until the documentary done on our church a while back and since have had a few questions and haven't been able to answer them. It will be nice to finally have something to reference.
Love you guys! Give the kids a kiss for me!
Just wanted to let you know that I am visiting your blog today. I wrote on mine today too.
http://theartofpatience.wordpress.com/
Love,
Dana
Wow! I am excited to read this fantastic book! Remember us? the Poulsens? I don't remember how we happend on your blog, but, "Hi"!
P.S. - The orange caution cone story is hilarious!
Post a Comment