« "Of you it is required..." | Main | Many Bothans died to bring you... »
The Lens of History...
Business trips over, so hopefully more consistent writing the rest of the month...
We saw the movie One Hour Photo on TV, recently--just the kind of psychological thriller "The Baroness" (a psych major) and I enjoy... The plot is irrelevant to the discussion, only that Robin Williams plays a photo development tech at a supermarket, and often muses in voiceover on the philosophies of picture-taking. Pictures are almost always of happy events and smiling faces, because "nobody takes a picture of something they want to forget". Pictures are a means of recording history...but obviously you can't take pictures of everything, and thus the choices you make in deciding what to immortalize in a print and what not to are significant. How do those choices affect the natural bias of the 'history' that photo albums record? Would someone looking at a family's photos deduce that they were a lot happier than true history indicated, simply because of the unbalanced subset of things that were photographed?
Journal writing, including blogging, can be considered in much the same way. The purpose of keeping a journal or diary is essentially to record history. But obviously you can't write everything that happens to you and those around you... What criteria do you use in recording certain things but not others--including the words you use to describe an event? How do those choices influence the natural bias of your writing?
For example: In 1st Nephi we read that even though Nephi was tied up for several days by his brothers:
Nevertheless, I did look unto my God, and I did praise him all the day long; and I did not murmur against the Lord because of mine afflictions. (1 Ne 18:16)
Now there is little reason to doubt that Nephi was a righteous man. Nevertheless, we could perhaps consider the fact that this record was being written by Nephi himself. The record indicates that Nephi was seemingly always patient in his afflictions. The interpretation of the events of 1st Nephi in the Book of Mormon Movie, though, shows Nephi as being at times a little tempermental and emotional during his afflictions (while still remaining within the bounds of righteousness behavior).
I found this entirely believable and one of the movie's (few) strengths. No one knows what really happened, but can we discount the possibility that Nephi, knowing that others would be reading the record made by his own hand, may have exaggerated (a little) his patience and long-suffering throughout his family's travels? He might have been entirely patient at all times, or maybe he let his emotions out a little, but didn't find it significant enough to mention in his record. Maybe he was afraid of giving future readers the wrong impression, or of taking away emphasis from the principle that we in our time could and should be patient in our afflictions as well.
History, even our own personal history, is filtered through the lens of the people writing it. Someone who faithfully keeps a journal is doing so for the purpose of recording the events in their lives, yet surely there is the temptation (even subconsciously) to phrase things in such a way that makes you come out better--especially if you think future generations are going to be reading your record. You soften things up a little, you leave a few minor details out that you consider to be unimportant, and your history is still accurate...yet perhaps different than someone else recording the exact same events might have written. (If there was a book of Laman, he might have had quite a different view of things within the 'history' of 1st Nephi than Nephi did...)
As mentioned last month, this exemplifies the vast uncertainty of any kind of historical study--you're forced to deal with the inherent biases of everyone who ever recorded anything. History is written by the winners, as they say (see this article for a good example of a 'revisionist history' controversy), and in the end that's all we have to go on. It may turn out that the difference between what really happened and what got written down in all aspects of human history, including scriptures, might be large indeed...
May 13, 2005 in Religion | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2450216
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Lens of History...:
Comments
I think I remember reading that Nephi wrote much of his words 20+ years after the fact! It was NOT a daily journal. We need to also remember that Mormom edited/transcribed Nephi's words 1000 years after they were written - I wonder if he used the U&T for transcription?
I believe they (all writers/editors/translators) of the BoM were guided by the spirit, but I really don't think the BoM is 'true' (in the sense of totally accurate). I believe if we had other people as prophets we would have different words in the BoM. Different, but sufficient, or 'good enough' for the Lord's purposes.
I, also, look forward to the day when we will know the truth of all things.
Posted by: Daylan Darby | May 14, 2005 7:52:40 PM
The small plates were written many years after the fact, although the large plates (the secular history) might have been more of a day-to-day record. (Hard to say...)
That's a good point...and represents one more level of abstraction and potential bias from the 'truth' to what got recorded in Nephi's record.
It seems obvious that God COULD have written all scriptures himself, having a 'perfect' record of all things (and, you know, He probably is making His own record in a matter of speaking). Yet in our mortal life, He makes us depend on the records of other mortals for our scriptures. Kind of interesting if you think about it...
Posted by: The Baron | May 14, 2005 9:59:30 PM