- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
David McCullough is considered American’s Historian right now. I like many of his books and love his writing style. Yesterday he gave an address and in it he said, “There is a tendency to fear that if we are honest about the dark passages of our history, it will lead people to not love our country. But you can’t love a country you do not know.” I don’t know if the same can be said of a religions history but it seems to me that it would. Just like loving a person. It’s easy to be friendly and feel love toward a person, especially on their good days. But the love becomes genuine when you can work with them on their bad days. Then you can truly say you love them.
It stuck out to me.
I really love that quote. I think a good comparison on that quote is country = church. mom3 wrote:“There is a tendency to fear that if we are honest about the dark passages of our history, it will lead people to not love our
Church. But you can’t love a Churchyou do not know.” Do we believe this to be true? Do you really need to know everything about Church history, warts and all, to truly love it? Is it enough for the Church to be a positive influence in my life in the 21st century; do I really need to understand and embrace JS’s treasure seeking, polyandry, stone-in-hat translation, the MMM, the Danites, Orrin Porter Rockwell, etc.?
So in a sense, I think I disagree with this premise — I love the Church in spite of some of its dark passages. They certainly don’t contribute to my affection for the Church.
Coincidentally, the same is true of the US. I’m a history nut so I’m probably slight more well informed than the average Joe on US history (although by no means an expert). And I love the US not because of its dark passages, but in spite of them.
Kumahito, I think you are agreeing with the quote.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.