Knowing Mormon History

For this week's online essay, try Knowing History, and Knowing Who We Are, by David McCullough (a repost at Meridian Magazine). McCullough, of course, provided the narrator's voice for Ken Burns' documentary The Civil War. I see his photo, I hear "the voice." Here's a line from the first paragraph: "Lord Bolingbroke, who was an 18th century political philosopher, said that history is philosophy taught with examples." Here are a few notes I made applying McCullough's thoughts to Mormon history.

1. If history is philosophy taught with examples, perhaps Mormon history is theology taught with examples. The "foundational truths" of Mormonism tend to be framed as historical events ("the Resoration") rather than creeds.

2. McCullough said that "it seems to me that one of the truths about history that needs to be portrayed — needs to be made clear to a student or to a reader — is that nothing ever had to happen the way it happened." It seems to me that the official LDS view of its own history is that everything had to happen the way it happened; there is no big-picture contigency allowed. In that sense, the LDS view of history is unhistorical. It assumes that things simply couldn't have happened differently.

3. McCullough said: "We [Americans] have a gift for improvisation. ... Improvisation is one of our traits as a nation, as a people ... ." This, I think, is one of the strengths of the thoroughly American LDS Church. It is not always evident in day-to-day experience, but the Church can change and adapt with surprising flexibility. It did 180 degree turns on central doctrines like polygamy and the priesthood ban when it was needed. Doctrinal and organizational guidelines are generally open to negotiation when circumstances require.

4. Turmbell's painting of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Ah yes, the difference between art and photography. Art is graphical narrative, a filtered or even fictional view seen through the eyes of the artist. Photography may be framed or angled, but at least it's the real thing (excluding a faked photo). "Faithful history" is a form of narrative art filtered through the eyes of the Church. I prefer history that strives to be more like narrative photography, giving real views as opposed to filtered ones.

5. McCullough said: "We are raising a generation of young Americans who are by-and-large historically illiterate." Likewise, we may be raising LDS members who are, by and large, historically illiterate. I've noted before, for example, how LDS histories keep shrinking: There were multi-volume treatments by BH Roberts in the early part of the 20th century, a one-volume Essentials in Church History at mid-century, and now we're down to tiny booklets like Truth Restored and Our Heritage.

6. McCullough quotes a child psychology professor who "said that attitudes aren’t taught, they’re caught. If the teacher has an attitude of enthusiasm for the subject, the student catches that whether the student is in second grade or is in graduate school." Good analogy for the successful LDS seminary program, which is really hoping students catch an attitude about the Church as much as the details of LDS doctrine or scripture. And it is taught by people with a lot of enthusiasm.

7. "Tell stories." LDS teaching and speaking culture takes full advantage of this advice. Some stories, of course, are better than others, but it beats dry doctrinal discourse, at least from the pulpit.

8. "I discovered books and read forever." He's quoting John Adams. Nice thought, Mr. Adams.

Comments

[Dave]

After actually reading the essay, I added the quotes and commentary. The essay, of course, is a transcription of a speech by McCullough to an audience of college students and faculty.

[Seth Rogers]

"It seems to me that the official LDS view of its own history is that everything had to happen the way it happened; there is no big-picture contigency allowed. In that sense, the LDS view of history is unhistorical. It assumes that things simply couldn't have happened differently."

You may be right. But I do not share this view. Take Missouri for example.

The D&C makes it pretty clear that the Saints were driven out of Missouri for, among other things, unrighteousness.

Everyone likes to draw the obvious comparisons between Moses and Brigham Young and the Mormon and Israelite Exodus. But they draw the wrong comparisons.

Missouri, not Utah, is the "Promised Land" for Mormons. We were not allowed to remain in the promised land because of unrighteousness. In a sense, we are still wandering in the wilderness. Like Moses, Brigham Young never led the Mormons into "Caanan."

But Mormon culture often ignores these comparisons. Instead, they like to make silly comparisons with the Sea of Galilea and the Dead Sea connected by the River Jordan, with Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake connected by the River Jordan.

But in my view, the Mormons never reached the Promised Land. They are still wandering in the wilderness. But I think such a status would make many Mormons uncomfortable since it implies that we are still acting like the murmuring Israelites. Mormons I know (myself included) tend to enjoy self-congratulation more than calls to repentance.

[Geoff Johnston]

I suspect this contracting of the amount of history taught is a natural result of the correlation effort that has become necessary as we have become a worldwide church. The historical "meat" is still available -- in fact there is more of it available and at our fingertips than ever before -- but the church-distributed materials of necessity focus on the "milk". It is now more up to us as individuals to study historical meat. The church will not spoon feed us.

Having said that, I don't think anyone will stop any of us from teaching more details in Gospel Doctrine or wherever if it seems appropriate.

[clark]

Dave, I'm not sure that (2) is something I could agree with. It seems to me that the LDS view of history is very contingent, with God knowing those contingencies. (A sort of halfway position between what you say here and Blake Ostler's strong Libertarianism) Take the 116 pages. Did Joseph have to give them? What about the activities of the Mormons during the Illinois and Missouri Wars? Couldn't they have followed the revelations regarding such matters? Would that have affected the building of the temple in Missouri? I think one could give ennumerable examples of this sort.

[clark]

Geoff, I think the one thing the church really needs to grapple with is the whole milk/meat issue. I think that part of the reason many find church boring is that it is always targeting people who don't know much about church. That is, new members or less committed ones. But those who are interested and do study, tend to have heard the things over and over again.

I'm not sure what the answers are to the problem. The current model though, seems oriented around strong members sacrificing by being bored out of the gourd. That's not to say hearing the same old things can't occasionally be important. We all neglect the basics at times. But sometimes hearing old things in new perspectives is helpful.