- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came across a fascinating article today about the Matthew Shepherd murder that was so instrumental in propelling gay rights into the national spotlight. In many ways, it was the Rosa Sparks moment for the LGBT community. This article is about a journalist, himself gay, who spent years interviewing people about the case and came to a very different conclusion than the nearly universal understanding from the uproar of the moment when it happened. This post is NOT about homosexuality, gay rights or any other similar issue. I do not want comments to go there, at all.I am posting the link here to highlight how difficult it is to get an objective view of any highly emotional, deeply personal event in the time frame in which it happens, how careful study in a time a bit removed from the event can lead to different conclusions and how those conclusions don’t mean people who previously believed and told a different version of the story were lying, whitewashing or insincere in any way. I think there is a lot of power in this article if we look at it in terms of evolving versions of Church history – and what it says about the near universal tendency to rush to whatever interpretation makes sense to us at the time. It also is interesting that a story that perhaps is incomplete or even wrong can be the catalyst for important change – that, perhaps, a partial truth being told in the heat of the moment actually can be better
in some casesthan having the full truth understood immediately. Maybe the key is being open to better understanding over time without throwing anyone under the bus for believing an incomplete or incorrect version previously. Please read the article and discuss whatever jumps out at you:
“
Have we got Matthew Shepherd all wrong?” ( http://www.advocate.com/print-issue/current-issue/2013/09/13/have-we-got-matthew-shepard-all-wrong?page=full Thanks for sharing, Ray. I had read a similar article recently (perhaps it was actually a commentary on this article), and you’re right – history often changes in retrospect. That is, the history itself doesn’t change, but the facts are brought together to give a bigger picture of what happened. Over time this story will change more and will probably, like Paul Revere and the Pilgrims, retain it’s original, albeit false, plot. I’m a newshound, and when my kids are around and we’re watching some major news story I always caution them that some of the facts we’re hearing are going to be different tomorrow and different again the next day. The number of dead or the number of shooters or exactly where things are happening are almost always wrong in those first reports – and are often exaggerated. 10,000 dead in the Philippines? Looks like it was much closer to 3,000. Still awful, and still not encompassing the hardships of the injured and surviving, but nonetheless wrong.
I presume you would like us thinkers here to now relate this to the recent church sanctioned linking of the differing accounts of the Joseph Smith story, and I’ll oblige. We each have our different perspectives, and just like moving around a room those perspectives are fluid. As I reflect back on my life now as someone in his early 50s, I see things much differently than I did 10 years ago and 20 years ago. I tell the same stories differently, partly because I see them differently now, when their fuller impact has been realized, and partly because sometimes my emphasis is different. I believe Joseph Smith was no different than me in that respect, and I believe the church is likewise not different in what it wants to emphasize. The canonized account of the first vision most clearly aligns with church teachings and is the clearest of each of the accounts IMO. I do not fault Joseph or the church for any of these perspectives and really do believe they are essentially all the same. Likewise, I do not fault the gay rights activists for seizing an opportunity to further their cause – whatever the true circumstances, for them Matthew Shepard’s death came at the right time and enough people had the same perspective as to make it work for a civil rights issue.
Quote:I presume you would like us thinkers here to now relate this to the recent church sanctioned linking of the differing accounts of the Joseph Smith story
No, but it works as one example.
I linked to the article to make the broadest point possible, not to reference any particular issue. If I want to make a specific link to something, I mention it directly, since I’m not into mind-reading at all.
Yes, we can get these things wrong. I’ve been reading some stuff about Harvey Milk in the last year, which doesn’t cast him in a good light, particularly as he supposedly used Jim Jones to help get himself elected. Despite this, the pretty good film, Milk, ignores this and is a hagiography. However the murder of Milk, regardless of these things was wrong. What does this say? That we can misread people or situations.
I am going to have to read more about Shepherd.
In order to express it in language (oral or written), it has be organized into a story for us to express our thoughts. Therefore, I agree…the story becomes a reflection of the storyteller and how they process their limited view of things.
That helps me process a lot of things I hear at church, when i realize what is being said is a reflection of the person speaking.
I have two experiences loosely related to interpretation of facts. First, was during the dedication of the Provo temple. I was driving by it while listening to KSL radio. I distinctly heard the news reporter say that the ceremony had just completed and the crowds were streaming out of the building. I was where I could clearly see the grounds and no one was to be seen. I can only guess that he was working from a printed schedule but not on site as he inferred. The second experience involving another news broadcast said that the I-15 near Cedar City was slick and treacherous. I was driving that stretch and could see that the road was dry. Both experiences concerned objective facts. Both were not about issues that the reporters could benefit by fabricating them, unless possibly by sounding authoritative and they could feel important. But that seems a stretch to me, given the continuing the practice would ultimately create huge credibility problems for the news casters and their station.
Humans making mistakes, they sometimes have ulterior motives, and they all have their biases. Also they can be selective in what they report to make a point. This is especially when discussing politics and religion. As long as the discussion is honest and open, I see no fault in this, including the multiple versions of the First Vision. I think we just need to slow down a bit, contemplate on what is being said, and ask questions to clarify meaning whenever possible. Jumping to conclusions leads to unhappy landings.
Quote:Or did our need to make a symbol of Shepard [Joseph Smith, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, MLK,….] blind us to a messy, complex story that is darker and more troubling than the established narrative?
I loved how this quote seemed so universally applicable. We do make people into symbols and in so doing we forever change how they are remembered.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.