The About-face Continues: DCP & Co. on "The Mormons

[_Blixa]

Its right up there with the "we'll never really know exactly what happened that day..." response. You know, history is never 100% recoverable so we can't say anything about it.

I guess I should add the old "the past has nothing to do with the present" assumption as well, though that's implied in all charges of "presentism."

And then there's the "its not necessary for our salvation" canard which becomes to final roadblock to thought in general...

[_Runtu]

Its right up there with the "we'll never really know exactly what happened that day..." response. You know, history is never 100% recoverable so we can't say anything about it.

I guess I should add the old "the past has nothing to do with the present" assumption as well, though that's implied in all charges of "presentism."

And then there's the "its not necessary for our salvation" canard which becomes to final roadblock to thought in general...

Yes, we'll never know what happened at Mountain Meadows in 1857, even though it's well-documented. But we know exactly what happened on that spring day in 1820, even though there's no evidence it ever happened.

[_harmony]

Its right up there with the "we'll never really know exactly what happened that day..." response. You know, history is never 100% recoverable so we can't say anything about it.

I guess I should add the old "the past has nothing to do with the present" assumption as well, though that's implied in all charges of "presentism."

And then there's the "its not necessary for our salvation" canard which becomes to final roadblock to thought in general...

Yes, we'll never know what happened at Mountain Meadows in 1857, even though it's well-documented. But we know exactly what happened on that spring day in 1820, even though there's no evidence it ever happened.

And we don't have any record, but we just know the Melch priesthood was restored... sometime, somewhere.

[_beastie]

Its right up there with the "we'll never really know exactly what happened that day..." response. You know, history is never 100% recoverable so we can't say anything about it.

Yes, you summed it up. Whenever I shared, in the past, information from actual Mesoamerican scholars that demonstrated severe incompatibility with the Book of Mormon, I got some version of this as a response, with one minor alteration:

"You know, history is never 100% recoverable so we can make up anything we want about it, and you can't tell us we're wrong."

[_Blixa]

This "take" on history can be found, to greater or lesser degree, outside of Mormonism as well. I think its probably endemic in the United States where basic education is so dreadful in general and especially lax in matters of history and geography.

I remember when I was studying Latin as an undergraduate and was engrossed in Julius Caesar's war commentaries. I mentioned to my mother how fascinating it was to read his own descriptions of various campaigns and also what an impressive stylist he was. Her response floored me. "How do they even know that's true, though? That was a long time ago..."

She was not a stupid woman, but not only did she invoke the mysterious "they," she seemed totally unfazed that I was referring to Caesar's own writings and not a historian's work. When I explained that, she again reiterated, "So? How do you know he wrote them?"

I guess I could have explained at length about the history of their preservation and the intellectual/scientific vetting of ancient texts, but what astounded me was the belligerence of the dismissal. I mean, what was her stake in repeatedly denying the veracity of the prose? Yeah, some of it was her typical dismissal of me, but this wasn't an isolated incident in our relationship, nor is it a response I've only observed in her. I've run into the same "defensiveness" countless times over the years from a variety of people (and students).

And I still don't get it. What is so threatening about history?

(I can answer my rhetorical question easily when examining specific reactions to specific historical events. What I still don't completly understand is what seems to be a generalized knee-jerk dismissal of historical study itself. The only sense it makes is as a symptom of larger american problems, but that it plays out so emotionally on the individual level never fails to astonish me.)

[_beastie]

Hmm, good question. I wonder if it may be related to the underlying resistance to learning from history. I think the US, in particular, is resistant to this idea - that history, even our own history including recent history such as Vietnam - may have contain valuable information that could influence our decisions today. It seems to me that we're a particularly stubborn country, and once "we" have decided upon a certain course, or a certain lifestyle, we don't want to listen to possible morality plays from history that could conceivable cause reasonable people to question our current course.

It also might have to do with the general disdain in the US towards the "intelligentsia".

It's a very good question.

[_harmony]

Hmm, good question. I wonder if it may be related to the underlying resistance to learning from history. I think the US, in particular, is resistant to this idea - that history, even our own history including recent history such as Vietnam - may have contain valuable information that could influence our decisions today. It seems to me that we're a particularly stubborn country, and once "we" have decided upon a certain course, or a certain lifestyle, we don't want to listen to possible morality plays from history that could conceivable cause reasonable people to question our current course.

It also might have to do with the general disdain in the US towards the "intelligentsia".

It's a very good question.

I think other factors may play in as well. Shame, for example. For such a young country, we've got some significant blood on our hands. Capturing and importing black slaves from Africa, our treatment of the people who lived here before Europeans ever set foot on the continent, rape of the environment (I'm thinking of the wholesale slaughter of entire forests, the mess we've made of the Everglades, Love Canal, etc.), the Japanese-American forced interrment during WWII... We have a lot for which we should be ashamed. Which is why I think the church goes to such extremes to whitewash their own history: they have a lot to be ashamed of.

[_Blixa]

True, harmony. But this is what doesn't make complete sense to me. I can have a sense of "historical shame" that doesn't compel me to feel personally ashamed about any of this. I had no hand in it. However, my "historical shame" does compel me to make sure I have a good grasp of these events so I can, in whatever way possible, learn from them and attempt to prevent such things from happening again.

What always surprises me is that way that many people have highly emotional "personal shame" reactions which mistake learning about events with being somehow "accused" of them. Thus avoidance, denial, or that horrible current catch-all: invoking the bugbear, "political correctness." (When I hear that phrase, I know the thinking has truly stopped---in the heads of those making the accusation, not in the heads of those accused of being "p.c.")

That's the disconnection that, as a teacher, I find myself facing all the time.

[_harmony]

True, harmony. But this is what doesn't make complete sense to me. I can have a sense of "historical shame" that doesn't compel me to feel personally ashamed about any of this. I had no hand in it. However, my "historical shame" does compel me to make sure I have a good grasp of these events so I can, in whatever way possible, learn from them and attempt to prevent such things from happening again.

What always surprises me is that way that many people have highly emotional "personal shame" reactions which mistake learning about events with being somehow "accused" of them. Thus avoidance, denial, or that horrible current catch-all: invoking the bugbear, "political correctness." (When I hear that phrase, I know the thinking has truly stopped---in the heads of those making the accusation, not in the heads of those accused of being "p.c.")

That's the disconnection that, as a teacher, I find myself facing all the time.

We aren't very old, as far as countries/societies/cultures go. 200+ years is infantile, actually. Maybe in 500 years, it won't be such a big deal, that my family member signed the Declaration of Independence, that we had people on the Mayflower, that we've been fighting on both sides of oppression and freedom for a long time. But right now, I can tell you who in my family owned slaves, who thought men with colored skin were less than human, who played trombone in the Brown County Kansas band, who made moonshine, who was a horse thief. It's personal to me. I think that's maybe one reason why people have that personal shame... because it's still personal to many of us.

[_Blixa]

And I suppose you don't have to even have the multiple points of family connection with particular events, just an emotional identification with the subject position, "american." Ideological interpolation in action! For whatever reason, I was never as firmly sutured into place...