Thursday, February 17, 2005

This post is brought to you by the letter....."L".

L is for liberal, that's good enough for me.

The headlines on the front page of the NY Times today read as follows: "Conservatives and Rivals Press a Struggling PBS"

To no one's surprise, PBS isn't doing so well. I'm ok with that. What bugs me is that "republicans criticize the programming as elitist and liberal." Yes, these value-packed conservatives don't want any of that elitist crap. They want family shows, shows for the average american, shows that reflect our traditional values. They want quality TV like "the Swan" or "My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss". Even better, they want shows like "Desperate Housewives".

I, for one, feel warped and cheated out of a childhood. I mean to think of the time I wasted watching "Sesame Street" and "Mr. Rodgers" (each brainwashing into the raging liberal I am today!!?!). I could've been so much more enlightened by the real-life scenarios of "Dallas" and "Miami Vice".

Here's to hypocracy!!!

Finish reading post.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Context (Sorry no catchy New York Post titles on this one)

How's this for an assertion: ultimately everything has to be understood within its own historical context. Ideas, institutions, works of art, etc. all come to life in history, and can only really be understood in light of that history.

The other night I was reading about Joseph Fielding Smith. This man was Church Historian from 1921 to 1970, but had worked in the historian's office since 1901. Whether you agree with them or not, his books on Church History are among the classics of our LDS canon. What interested me about him, though, is that his obsession with history came from a desire to understand the Doctine and Covenants in its historical context. I don't have the exact quotation, but he believed that it was impossible to understand these revelations outside of the church's history that surrounded them.

So what does this idea that context is everything mean for works like the Book of Mormon? Is there enough context already in the book, or when more gets laid out in the future will we all let out a collective "ah-ha"? More generally, (for those of you who get a little sick of the LDS blather)how much context is enough to understand an event? I mean, we'll never have it all. Is there a threshold that you cross and say, "ok now I understand the context"?

Finish reading post.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

A Snowball's Chance...


I hate to tell you guys this, but none of you except Rich has even the slightest shot at becoming president. Just ask Mitt Romney as he's gearing up for his 2008 bid.

Finish reading post.

Saints without Halos

I did it. I couldn’t hold out any longer. Despite my best efforts to wait for Richard Bushman’s new book of essays to get cheaper on Amazon.com, I gave in and bought it. For you unenlightened, Richard Bushman is a professor of American History at Columbia (and also in my ward here in New York). His biography of the first half of Joseph Smith’s life is regarded by Mormons and un-Mormons alike as the best picture of the Prophet around.

A paragraph in this new book (“Believing History”) grabbed me good. In it Bushman writes as follows:

“Virtually everyone who has shown the “human side” of the Church and its leaders has believed the enterprise was strictly human. To defend the faith, Mormon historians have thought they must prove the Church to be inhumanly righteous. We need historians who will mourn the failings of the Saints out of honor for God instead of relishing the warts because they show the Church was earthbound after all.”


I’d love to point my finger and scoff at the naïve folks who can’t take even a small dose of historical reality, but I’m guilty of this too. Any slight criticism of the giant figures in LDS history causes me to cringe a little. I’m open to the “saints without halos” idea in theory, and I’ll almost always agree to out loud, but I do feel a little hurt when people bring up the “warts” of Mormon history. This is probably b/c it’s so often done with the aim to discredit. Personal feelings aside, it sounds like a needed , but difficult, challenge for LDS historians.

What do you guys think? Is Bushman’s ideal Mormon historian possible? For those of you who’ve read Bushman’s biography, do you think he fits the mold?




Finish reading post.