Lucretia MacEvil wrote:If telling a story about a GA's youthful indiscretion would undermine what that GA is saying and doing today, then that GA can't stand on his own merits.
A GA's youthful indiscretion need not undermine what a GA is saying and doing today.
That DHO would object to learning any "negative" information about George Washington is childish, that he couldn't admire Washington for his accomplishments if he knew Washington had had an affair in his teens, for example ... that he would rather not know anything negative and put Washington on a pedestal like a saint...
Elder Oaks said: In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.
MG: notice he said "useful". If Washington had youthful indiscretions it is not necessary to know about that when reading a book about the founding fathers of the nation and the great works they performed. Interesting, yes. Useful? Not necessarily. Why detract from the positive things Washington and the other founding fathers did? Now after reading a book about Washington and the other founding fathers and the great works they performed as it relates to the founding of our nation, if I was to find out that Washington had youthful indiscretions...then so be it. It is interesting, but not useful inasmuch that knowing that tid bit of information doesn't change the fact that he played an important role at the beginning of our great nation.
Regards,
MG