http://www.ldsbooklovers.com/collections.asp?pid=298&f=ji

A term that I think conveys the same or equivalent message as myth is collective memory. Memory, from what I’ve seen, interests both academics and lay people.

I think that we need more discussions concerning how Emma Smith has been represented in Mormon memory since the death of JS. Only then can we situate our current representations of her in a longer, and more informed, chronology. SC Taysom’s 2002 Dialogue article on the memory of JS’s polygamy provides a preliminary investigation into how Mormons from Brigham Young to the 1990s have imagined Emma Smith. But more work needs to be done.

Personally, however, my favorite portrayal to date remains Mormon Enigma. But you really have got to get a whole picture, I think, to put Emma’s difficulties in perspective, and a lot of people just don’t typically put forth the time and effort to gain it. So its left out. Perhaps there is a better way to incorporate it into the myth. I think it could present a deeper, more complex picture. But it would probably take longer than the 15-minute visitor center feature length.

p.s. I don’t really know what a myth is, just wanted to play along.

I know a student who attended a Church History class taught by one of the most popular lecturers the Religion Dept. has. He said that most students swooned, but he felt there were many distortions and dramatizations of the history that could have been just as easily and upliftingly presented in a more historically accurate fashion. He came away from the experience disheartened. It didn’t “promote” his faith, but his faith was based on something different.

My point is, that I think there is a certain healthiness in promoting faith, whatever that faith may be based on. In the short run, many need reinforcement based on “sanitized” material. There is value in that since the Church, as well as most religious organizations, needs a certain amount of spiritual stability collectively to function. In the long run, though, I think we can only gain as a people by gradually being brought to understand a more historically accurate version of these events and basing our faith on that.

So, is there a place for sanatized history? In my opinion yes. Is it ok to pick holes in it? Also yes. That process also promotes the faith of some, and that’s important too. Those that poke holes, however, like myself, need to constantly remind ourselves that, as David put it, it’s a delicate thing to mess with someone’s religious construct, and great care must be taken.

Bushman’s book has had a mixed reception from the rank and file to the general authorities. It’s his right to produce a work that promotes a type of faith as well as it’s Gracia Jones’ right to produce a work that promotes a type of faith (whether it be her books, her lectures, or her role in this movie). Both have a role. I think, though, that when pitted head to head, each person will have to make personal decisions about which is truer. Eventually, I say again, I think that a sensitive shift from “sanitized” to “more accurate” portrayal of Church history will only benefit us as a people.

I suspect that the “tearing” feeling you feel is the tension between knowing that sanitized history has a place and also believing that a non-sanitized history is ultimately preferrable. At least, that’s what it is for me.

So, do I make better nachos than philosophy?

Benjaminp: Thanks for sharing that information about Gracia Jones. I was unaware that she is the historical consultant. I think that you raise a good question about navigating between presenting a complex image that at the same time builds faith. I think it’s possible, but it needs to be done with delicacy.