Oh Say, Where is Truth?
While traveling across country recently, I was engrossed in a highly-acclaimed biography of one of the prophets of this dispensation, which was written by a believing, committed member of the LDS Church. As the author began referring to the accounts of certain incidents, however, I became at first uncomfortable, and finally very disturbed.
My unease did not come from fears that my testimony would be shaken, but rather because I sensed that much of what was being considered as “history” or “facts” was not really how things actually happened. I doubted the accuracy of some of the original reporting, and the memories of those being quoted, because they didn’t ring true to me.
I put the biography aside, and resumed reading a work of fiction which is loosely based on the life of a prophet of this dispensation, and which was written by another believing, committed member of the Church. A few pages into my reading I was struck by the realization that I felt a much stronger sense of “truth” while I was reading that fantasy novel, than I did while reading certain parts of the supposedly non-fiction biography. How could this be?
The people in the biography were real people, and the events chronicled had really happened (at least most of them!). The events and the characters in the novel, although inspired by real events and people, were an invention of the author. What was the “truth” I was sensing?
While reading the biography, I think I often experienced tension because much of what I was reading did not seem to harmonize with things I knew spiritually to be true.
While reading the novel, however, I felt strongly that author and I shared the same fundamental worldview. Within the imaginary world he created, the characters (including their motivations, reactions and interactions), as well as the events portrayed (including their genesis and the resulting consequences) fully resonated with my sense of the underlying truths of our universe.
Do you agree that sometimes works of fiction can communicate certain kinds of truth more forcefully than non-fiction? If so, what are some of the books, plays, films, etc. which you feel fall into this category?
Commentators please note: The point of this post is not to discuss the specific biography referred to above–there are threads running on other blogs for that purpose.
April 18th, 2006 16:24
Oh, I most definetly believe this can be true. I’m one of these ladies that has never really had a problem with polygamy, most likely because I never felt that I would actually get married in this life. As I was reading a work of fiction that addressed the issue I realized that polygamy was an Abrahamic test not just for individuals, but also for the church. It was a truth that hit my to the core of my soul and I have never forgotten the message I recieved. Hopefully this comment doesn’t bring a wave of Polygamy issues! Be good other readers and answer what truths can be taught in fiction. Feel free to delete this comment also if it seems that it will create a discussion that does not belong here!
April 18th, 2006 16:32
Thanks, Tigersue. Your comment, including the phrase, “a truth that hit me to the core of my soul,” is exactly what I was hoping for. I believe that the Spirit can witness to us in unforgettable ways while we are reading fiction. I’m sure readers will not fixate on the polygamy issue.
April 18th, 2006 18:09
When I read a biography, especially one about a certain prophet of this dispensation
, I always wonder how it is that two people can read the same things and yet have such different reactions about the historicity issues. It sometimes seems that our take on who and what to believe says more about us than it does about the subject of the book.
For example, you say that the way certain things were presented didn’t “ring true” to you. My own experience with human nature doesn’t allow me to give much credence to the diary of a 16 year-old girl, but for some, the source would be considered “better” because of her youth. So I agree that when we read, whether fiction or non, there is always an inner dialogue going on that says- yes-this is true, or no- I don’t buy that.
And to answer your question (finally!)The writers of fiction that rings more true to me than most are Jane Austen and Patrick O’Brian.
April 18th, 2006 18:28
I think you are right.
April 18th, 2006 20:48
C Jones, Thanks for your comments. I agree with your point about the reader revealing himself by how he reacts to historicity issues. I stand revealed as (fill in an appropriate noun or adjective depending on how you react to what I have written).
You said: “you say that the way certain things were presented [in the biography] didn’t ‘ring true’ to you.” Actually, I was careful not to use the word “presented,” because I wanted to focus not on the possible worldview of the author, but rather on the problems inherent in any historical recollections. In my experience, even journal entries written at the end of the day are subject to error. Just days ago I was emailing a friend, and when I quoted a humorous remark of my husband’s, I realized that even though only a few hours had passed, I wasn’t sure I remembered his precise phrasing. And when I reread entries from my journal at age 16, I clearly see that I was looking at some things through such emotionally distorted lenses that a reader might easily misinterpret what was really going on.
Even the best of intentions cannot guarantee accurate reporting. We all know from personal experience that we often mishear what is spoken, misinterpret what we see, remember things inaccurately, report them incorrectly and succumb to the influence of others when we are asked to chronicle events we may have witnessed. Too me, that means that I had better have a salt shaker handy when reading any historical accounts!
Back to fiction. Jane Austen is at the top of my list, too. I only recently learned of Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin series of books, and I look forward to reading them.
April 18th, 2006 21:24
I think fiction can be a lot clearer because the author is in charge. He can create the thoughts, actions and motivations of the characters. It ends up being a more organized presentation, and the story doesn’t have as many inconsistancies as real life. And the story can be completed, whereas in real life we are often left hanging.
Even with a list of facts, primary resources, eyewitness accounts, we can never really get the whole picture when we are talking about history. Why did someone do something, say something, etc. We all know that two people can remember one event quite differently.
Kennedy’s assassination is a perfect example. I have no idea what the latest theory is, but they are always trying to prove or disprove the magic bullet.
Fiction is a great way to show life as it should be, or to highlight certain aspects of life. I remember reading that if your children are exposed to violence in stories/movies, you should be concerned about the kind of violence. There is a big difference between moral violence (good fighting against evil) vs. random violence, or violence with no moralilty.
Stories tend to have some happily ever aspects, even if there is tremendous tragedy. The human spirit wants something good to come out of it, even if it is just a character becoming a wiser person.
Sometimes the “truth” I find in fiction is seeing how the world should be, how I should be. I see in characters qualities that I want to have.
A talented author gives me a glimpse into a different life and I come away with something that has changed me for the better.
Not all fiction does this, of course. And I am often irritated by TV shows, or books, ignore the realities of life, or have characters do things that just don’t ring true.
But, there is much truth to be learned from authors who have a gift to share something. I am currently reading CS Lewis’s Screwtape Letters. While he has an incomplete understanding of the gospel, what he does understand is genius.
April 18th, 2006 21:50
JKS, thanks for some very perceptive insights. I agree with your comments on both fiction and history. If we are looking for truth, we have to sift through a lot of error to find it wherever we are looking.
For me, one of the challenges in today’s world is how to avoid being deceived by the false (but often beguiling!) worldviews so often presented by various kinds of media. When they appear stupid, no problem. But when they are artfully depicited, there is a danger of being fooled into accepting flashy, worldly, false values.
I am a C.S. Lewis fan, too! Have you read “Mere Christianity?”
April 18th, 2006 22:56
I think you’re making a common misunderstanding about what history is. History is not a list of what actually happened in the past — it is the study of accounts of the events of the past and their significance in the context in which the historian is writing. Thus, a “accurate history” isn’t always going to tell you the important truths about an event in the past. However, it can give you an understanding of how some folks closer to the event in time and/or space understood it to have occurred.
Fiction doesn’t suffer from those problems. Murky understandings can be sharpened up, boring individuals can be merged, deleted or spiced up. Thus, the important truths of the event can be enhanced. They can also be distorted, removed or inserted.
I haven’t read the history/biography I think you’re talking about, but I’ve read two fictional works (by the same author) which could be the fictional work you’re discussing. I like both.
April 19th, 2006 00:41
Blain, you have put your finger on a very important point when you said that, “history is not a list of what actually happened in the past.” I think you have described very well what historical writing really is, and therefore, what we can, and cannot, expect to learn from it. Unfortunately, many people do not understand that distinction, and they tend to think just because Mr. X took notes on Miss Y’s recollections of what Mr. Z said, we can now be certain that we know what Mr. Z said.
You have also pointed out some of the characteristics of historical fiction which can make it very appealing, as well as some of the reasons why it is a different kettle of fish from a non-fiction historical work. Different kinds of truth may be found in both types of writing.
April 19th, 2006 07:49
This reminds me of an episode of the X-files, (yikes, I know) where the story was shown from the perspectives of two different people, (Mulder and Scully). In Scully’s version the town sherriff was a handsome man who was obviously smitten with her, and in Mulder’s version he was a bucktoothed hick that couldn’t tie his own shoes. Important details were missing from both versions, but together they made most of the story clear.
Anyhow to answer your question I think just about all the books by C.S. Lewis convey truth, and many of them are fiction (esp the Chronicles of Narnia).
April 19th, 2006 09:10
RoAnn — Thanks. I have a hard time getting that point across to non-history folks, but I keep trying.
And your point is exactly right — there are different kinds of truth, and I am always a fan of appreciating a source of truth for what it is, rather than beating it up for what it is not. Reading history gives me a better understanding of an event by providing me with perspectives on that event (the more sources I read, the more perspectives I get). Along the way, I learn how much of what I’m reading is telling me more about the source than it is the event. My first significant historical research project had to do with the dividing and nation-forming in the Mideast after WWI, and a major figure in those events was T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia, for those not recognizing the name without the appendage), of whom a number of people have written from a number of perspectives, including Mr. Lawrence himself (interestingly, Lawrence is considered one of the least reliable sources in the details, because he was trying to write this as a work of literature, rather than a dry chronicle of the events). Sulemain Moussa, an Arab writer, was very critical of Lawrence, as he saw Lawrence gaining way too much credit for the Arab revolt, largely as a backlash against Lowell Thomas, who darn near worshipped the ground Lawrence walked on. Taken on its own, Moussa is very one-sided against Lawrence. Balanced against Thomas, you get a better idea of where each of them has gone off track.
Starfoxy — I loved that episode (I think it had Charles Nelson Reilly in it iirc). I loved the bleeping law enforcement guy. He was the bleep.
April 19th, 2006 10:21
I was thinking about this last night, and I was going to say C.S. Lewis also, but I think I like “The Great Divorce” best. Other fiction that conveys truth well? “Les Miserables” (the book as well as the play). And two suggestions that will probably get me mocked: the first chapter of “The Silmarillion” by tolkien, and Harry Potter book 5. I like Rowlings’s astute observations of the “ordinary” villians, like the evil bureaucrat Umbridge, or the cowardly Cornielus Fudge. I think with these characters she describes a very realistic type of evil.
I don’t want to sound provocative, but where do you think the scripture fall? Whenever we study the Old Testament I find myself wondering about the story behind the initial recording of the story I’m reading. I mean I’m dying to know who was privy to some of the intimate details, and what they were thinking when they decided to include some tidbits, but leave other things out. Last Sunday we were studying a chapter where the Israelites complain to Moses. Moses tells the Lord, Why have you given me this burden? Don’t you like me? Look, these aren’t my kids, I didn’t conceive them. Is it my job to put up with these babies? If that’s what you want me to do, then please just kill me, if you like me at all. And you know, the Lord is pretty upset with the Israelites too, and he doesn’t blame Moses at all (He tells him to call 70 to help out). My husband is reading this with me, and he thinks this is so funny, he starts laughing, because he can’t believe this is actually in the scriptures, and because the picture is so vivid.
But who wrote this? I don’t think Moses did, because it is told in the third-person, with observations about Moses that I don’t think he’d say about himself. Did a close friend write it? I just don’t know. Can you imagine how different the story of the Israelites in the wilderness would be if it was told through a variety of perspectives, if historians could get their hands on the personal journals of a cross-section of the Israelites who wandered with Moses? Could we say that account would be as accurate, or as meaningful, as the account we have? I think it might be intersting, for curiosity’s sake; maybe it would even be fascinating. But I don’t think it would be meaningful for us in our lives like the scriptures are. I guess because the scriptures tell us what happened more from the Lord’s perspective, and reading that helps orient us to his viewpoint, and therefore to what is real.
April 19th, 2006 11:58
I haven’t read Mere Christianity or The Great Divorce. I’m reading Screwtape Letters for my bookclub.
Kristy, it is an interesting point you bring up about scripture. I am actually pretty ignorant of what’s in the OT, and since I”m in primary I’m not going to be picking up anything in SS! I think that since our church feels that there have been some poor translations, we know that there are many unclear things written in the bible. Most of us I think trust the NT a little more, partially because it was written not as long ago. We have a little more information to fill it out and feel more confident in the facts. The OT is a little murkier.
But even though it can be confusing, there is much in the OT that is very definitely truth. There are many great stories in there with powerful lessons. THere are so many heros and examples of who we should be in those OT bible stories. Esther, Daniel, Noah, Jonah, Joseph, Moses, etc.
I like what Blain says: “and I am always a fan of appreciating a source of truth for what it is, rather than beating it up for what it is not. “
April 19th, 2006 13:02
JKS, I’m not saying I think the OT is suspect, but I didn’t get much sleep last night, so I probably make less sense than usual. I just wonder where scriptures fall with regards to the two types of history RoAnn mentioned. They aren’t a historian’s history, that tries to stick to documentable facts, and yet we certainly wouldn’t want to call them historical fiction! I like Blain’s explanation that historians don’t give us the Pure Truth about what happened, but they do give us an understanding of what various people who were there understood to have happened. The scriptures aren’t interested in giving us a full and complete picture of what different people involved in an event thought about it, like a history would. However, we certainly don’t expect the authors to embellish or make up conversations, like in historical fiction. But we do expect that, like historical fiction, the author will somewhat pick and choose what is significant, and that they may not tell the story as seen by 90% of the eyewitnesses (for example, I think the priests of Noah would tell the story of Abinadi very differently than Alma told it). I think they are interested in telling about the event and what was important as seen through the eyes of God and the prophets.
So I think the scriptures are able to tell the truth about things, the things that are really significant, without telling all the less-meaningful-but-also-happened-and-were-experienced-things surrounding an event.
April 19th, 2006 14:15
Kristy, Welcome to this discussion! And Blain and JKS, thanks for your additional comments.
I have been away from the computer for many hours–how annoying when “real life” calls us away from such a fascinating conversation (LOL)– and now must leave again. But I will get back here and add my remarks on the very interesting points that have come up.
April 19th, 2006 14:22
Oh, and thank you, Starfoxy, for bringing in a reference to The X Files (as well as another cheer for C.S. Lewis).
As far as I am concerned, it is only pseudo-intellectuals who roll their eyes at the mention of The X Files. And it is obvious to me that those of us commenting on this thread are not pseudo-anything!
April 19th, 2006 17:55
Blain, it’s great to have comments here from a real historian. I have a keen interest in history, but I have not read widely. It must have been fascinating to do research on the Mid-East, post-WW. Probably extremely frustrating, too. I have seen a couple of documentaries on T.E. Lawrence, as well as the film “Lawrence of Arabia,” but I haven’t read his “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” or his other writings. There is something about his story that really intrigues us, isn’t there?
Kristy, re possible mockery: You will get no mockery from me over your choice of reading material. It so happens that I like the Harry Potter books, and I reread “The Lord of the Rings” every few years. (I have yet to read “The Silmarillion,” however. It seemed a bit daunting when I looked at it in the library.)
April 19th, 2006 18:13
Now, to Kristy’s question of how to regard the Scriptures. Kristy, I think you have clearly demonstrated the inadequacy categorizing historical writings as either history or historical fiction. (Actually, in my original post I didn’t mean to limit “fiction” to historical fiction. I meant to highlight the possibility of perceiving certain kinds of “truth” in any fictional work.) So, let’s throw out the limiting number, and admit that there are several kinds of history.
Even with that expansion, I wouldn’t like to categorize the Scriptures as “History.” In my mind, “Scriptures” is simply a separate category altogether: “writing recognized by the Chruch as sacred and inspired.” (Bible Dictionary, p.770)
The scriptures contain poetry and maxims as well as history; and their authors often used imagery, analogy, rhetorical questions, and other literary techniques to make their points. In the OT we have whole chapters that are full of details of laws and ordinances. We read stories about individuals as well as the record of entire peoples. Personal encounters with the Lord himself appear alongside accounts of what seems to be rape and murder committed by members of the chosen people of God.
Kristy has pointed out some of the challenges we face when reading the Old Testament. We don’t really know how much of what we read contains translation or copying errors. We can’t be certain how much is an accurate recounting of facts, and how much is a literary rendition which takes “poetic license” to make the story more memorable in the mind of readers.
Kristy, I loved the example you gave of Moses whining and complaining in such a dramatic way. I think humor is an appropriate reaction to some things in the OT.
Perhaps the inclusion of many details about some of the Lord’s chosen helps us to see them as real individuals, with their different and imperfect personalities. Maybe that can help us to accept that our prophets in this dispensation were/are also imperfect mortals, and that the Lord has patience with them and sustains them as they continue to serve him.
A lot of the stories are inspiring, but some appear very, very strange—at least to those of us raised in cultures that are radically different from those in OT times. I like the way JKS highlighted the importance of concentrating on the positive: “There are many great stories in there with powerful lessons. There are so many heroes and examples of who we should be in those OT Bible stories.”
JKS also quoted Blain, and I just have to do the same in this context: “I am always a fan of appreciating a source of truth for what it is, rather than beating it up for what it is not.” Bravo!
For LDS seeking spiritual truth, perhaps this statement of Kristy’s sums up why we value the scriptures so highly: “the scriptures tell us what happened more from the Lord’s perspective, and reading that helps orient us to his viewpoint, and therefore to what is real.”
April 19th, 2006 18:49
Blain, I’ve been a fan of your comments around various blogs…but now I know why I was so sure your a stand up guy…your an X-Files fan!!
Quick trivia…who was the actor who played the vampire sheriff? He was an unknown then, but is hugely popular now
(as happened with SOOO many actors who starred in X-files monster of the week episodes -Seth Green, Jack Black, Giovanni Ribisi….man I think Im going to have to watch all 9 seasons again…)
April 19th, 2006 20:11
Some of the most profound truths I have ever read came from fiction.
April 19th, 2006 20:43
Thanks for dropping in, Veritas. I wish I could answer your trivia question, but I am one of those who often forgets faces as well as names!
Tracy m, we would enjoy your sharing the names of some of the books that really impressed you this way.
April 19th, 2006 20:46
I agree with you RoAnn, that the scriptures are in a category all their own. It was fun exploring the idea that they combine (in a unique way) some of the advantages of each of the type of historical writing you mentioned in your first post. Some people do get hung-up on questions about what is true from the Old Testament, but I just love it when we study it in gospel doctrine, because I tend to focus on the amazing little details that find their way in, and are somehow preserved in the stories. I guess in practice, I follow the advice to “enjoy what it is”.
Well, I’m so pleased to know that my enjoyment of the Great Ones (Lewis, Tolkien, Rowing) and my guilty-pleasure Sci-Fi interests are NOT considered evidence of the decline of Western Civilization here! I wasn’t sure I would like ‘The Silmarillion” when I picked it up because it is a bunch of the background legends alluded to in “Lord of the Rings”. However, I highly recomend it, especially if you re-read the series periodically; it will really fill in the back-story. It begins with a beautiful version of the creation story for Tolkien’s world, and I like the imagery he used.
I’m so glad you are blogging, and I look forward to more of your posts!
April 19th, 2006 20:55
Veritas, the actor was Luke Wilson. I actually knew that (cause I thought he was cute when that episode came out and noticed when I saw him in other things), but more info on that episode can be found here.
April 19th, 2006 21:25
Thanks, Kristy! I agree that there are fascinating details in the OT, and “enjoy what is” sounds like great advice.
Once again, if we are looking for truth that will enrich our lives, it doesn’t really matter if all the details in the scriptures are “correct.” The Spirit can enable us to find gems of wisdom, and see how to apply what we read to our lives, even if the translation has been garbled.
It seems to me that part of the “veil” we experience during our mortal probation is that God doesn’t clarify every misunderstanding, or immediately correct every mistake made by his servants. It is intended that we learn through experience, and that means bumbling along as we “see through a glass darkly.” And along the way we hope to learn humility, forgiveness, and charity, among other things. The longer I live, the more I am coming to appreciate the brilliance and rightness of the great plan of happiness set out for us in mortality, and the joy we can experience with our brothers and sisters as we help each other make our way back home.
April 19th, 2006 23:03
Oh, my.
A few points of clarification — I’m not a real historian. The head of the history department at the University (the only person to give me a F at college — the only person I’ve really earned an F from) could verify that. I’m a student of history and a history hobbyist, and that’s about as far as it goes.
Also, while I love X-files, I don’t have cable, and they don’t have the DVDs at my local Hollywood, and I haven’t had the money to buy them, so I haven’t watched five episodes in the past five years. Although I can quote most seasons of Buffy (and discuss them semi-intelligently), the first 1.5 seasons of Angel and anything Firefly/Serenity. I also love the Law and Order shows, not that anybody is apt to care.
That said….
I really like the way Kristi is bringing scripture into this question, because it’s a very important thing to consider. I think we tend to view The Scriptures as things that have always been around in essentially their current form, less a little “as far as it is translated correctly” here and there to give us room to disagree with anything we take a mind to. But we tend to take them at a very face value — what they say is said in such a way that we assume that there was a reporter watching the events and recording what was seen in the first place. But there wasn’t. Most of the stories in scripture spent at least a portion of time being passed around in oral tradition — written language wasn’t even developed for some of the story, let alone wide-spread literacy sufficient that written texts could have had much impact. What we call The Bible was not compiled as a unit as it went along — nobody writing any of the texts thought they were writing in The Bible.
So taking the whole text at face value is at best problematic. Thus, the question of what truth we look to scripture to provide for us, and the other question of how we are to understand that truth is very important for us to consider. For me, at this point in my life, I turn to scriptures less to find an understanding of the events described than I do simply as an exercise in reaching out toward God. I don’t begin to understand how to reconcile the history it describes with the evidence we have of ancient events. I listen to the stories (reading scripture tends to get me caught up in little intellectual spirals as questions that spawn other questions result from setting my eyes upon the page, so I listen to them on my mp3 player) and I let my mind listen in and wander and I go interesting places in that process. Sometimes I listen very closely, and, other times, I’m lost in thought.
Anyhow, I’m tired and I’ve forgotten what I wanted to say about those things.
Lawrence is interesting, in part, because what we know of him doesn’t make a lot of sense. He was brilliant in bringing the principles of guerrilla war to play against a major world power, something studied and followed by Mao, and it clearly made an impression on folks like Osama bin Laden. For all of my reading on him, I think the paper I produced mentioned him in passing in one paragraph — militarily, he was a major player in that region, but he was not diplomatically significant to the outcome of the situation. WWI did a lot more destroying than it did building, and that was at least as true in the Arab lands as it was anywhere else.
April 20th, 2006 00:53
Rather interesting that most of those who have commented on this thread (including me) are science-fiction/fantasy aficionados. I wonder what that says about us.:) Besides reading a lot of books and stories in those catergories over the years, various members of my family are fans of X-Files, Buffy, early Angel, and Serenity/Firefly. (Law and Order, too, even though that is more historical fiction than science fiction!)
Blain, I can see your points about the Bible. And surely your approach of “turning to the scriptures as an exercise in reaching out toward God” is valid, and hopefully you find it productive and rewarding.
Personally, I guess I am content to take a very simplistic point of view, and not worry too much about questions of historical accuracy. I just hope I can be in tune with the Spirit enough to recognize at least some of the truths in whatever part of the scriptures I am studying at the moment. Sometimes I feel that I gain a new understanding of a particular principle; sometimes I experience an overwhelming sense that God lives and loves me; sometimes I just feel a strong assurance that the Gospel is true, and that the promises of the Lord are sure, even if I don’t understand them perfectly.
April 20th, 2006 07:49
Well, back in the day you would see a stronger geek identity of internet users — enough so that the Geek Code was developed (I have even had a geek code before). It’s diluted from what it was, but it’s far from totally gone.
I think staying out of the area of historical accuracy in scripture is an underrated approach to them — consciously staying out of them, that is. There is a great body of traditional history about them which is interesting to learn and note, but that traditional history should not be confused with a fact-based history. How far apart they are is hard to determine, but there it is a significant thing.
Our ward includes an Indian reservation, and about half of our members of record live there. For the past 20 years, almost none have attended meetings, but the past five years or so has seen a handful of adult converts from that area who have stayed active. A while ago, someone in the ward commented about that during a testimony meeting (I was away that day), referring to these folks as Lamanite. One of the fiestier of the bunch got up and gently pointed out that, while she appreciated the sentiments this other sister had shared, she wasn’t a Lamanite. Pacific Coastal peoples can very clearly trace their ancestry, language and culture to coastal peoples of Russia, not just in the era of the Bering land bridge, but with cultural intercourse in recorded history.
But LDS traditional history has all Indian peoples being Lamanites. I remember hearing people disputing that anybody came across the Berring land bridge when I was younger. Looking at the facts of the matter, I can’t see a reason to think that all of the people already here at the time of Columbus could be traced to a handful of Lehites that arrived 2000 years earlier. In fact, the text of the Book of Mormon gives evidence that there were other peoples already here, and I don’t just mean the (100% dead) Jaredits nor the people of Zarahemla.
But that’s getting afield and I have other stuff to do. Right now, actually.
Veritas — I didn’t want to ignore your compliment. Thank you. I’m glad that you’ve enjoyed my participation. It’s good to have you in the thread.
April 20th, 2006 21:11
Blain, forgive me for not getting into a discussion of any “LDS traditional history” theories about the Book of Mormon. FARMS and FAIR have a lot of interesting things about genetics and geography which no doubt you have read.
By the way, I am back to reading the biography which prompted this thread. I am keeping firmly in mind Blain’s reminder to not look so much for truth in terms of facts, but rather to seek increased understanding “of how some folks closer to the event[s] in time and/or space understood [them] to have occurred.”