NOM

Consiglieri touched upon this when he discussed the changes in the role of the Traveling Quorum of the Apostles.

History changes to suit the status quo and as the status quo changes so must history. That way all will be correlated in a perfectly aligned pile. As you know, we have always been at war with Eurasia, at least until we are no longer at war with them. God will always look unfavorably upon X, until such time that we the living revelators reveal otherwise. So it is written, so it shall be revised. History once was as we are now. History will be as we then become.

It is so true that history changes to fit the status quo. I remember being taught in history that Robert E Lee was faithful to his state, because until the civil war, the states were more loosely "United". Sure, we were the United States, but it was more united STATES while now it is more UNITED states. So, Robert E Lee was torn between loyalty to his state of Virginia and his country of US. He of course choose to go with his state as most Americans did at that time. He considered himself a Virginian first and an American second.

So, now as people are pushing to take down Confederate monuments, I see Lee being described as "a traitor to his country." Now days, people move from state to state much more than they did in Lee's day. For example, I have lived in 8 states, so where is "home"? But in Lee's day, people were often born, raised, and died within 50 miles, so "home" was less the nation and much more their state. And the States just were not as centrally governed as what we are now. Now we have a much stronger federal government and much weaker states.

When people decide that Lee was a traitor, they are changing history to fit their current definition by flipping the priority of state vs country and thus changing who is and is not a traitor to their "homeland".

This is just one example of this that I have observed this week, of history changing before my eyes.

moksha wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:58 amGod will always look unfavorably upon X, until such time that we the living revelators reveal otherwise. So it is written, so it shall be revised. History once was as we are now. History will be as we then become.

Which is why it's such a knee-slapper when Mormons criticize moral relativism.

alas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:08 pm It is so true that history changes to fit the status quo. I remember being taught in history that Robert E Lee was faithful to his state, because until the civil war, the states were more loosely "United". Sure, we were the United States, but it was more united STATES while now it is more UNITED states. So, Robert E Lee was torn between loyalty to his state of Virginia and his country of US. He of course choose to go with his state as most Americans did at that time. He considered himself a Virginian first and an American second.

So, now as people are pushing to take down Confederate monuments, I see Lee being described as "a traitor to his country." Now days, people move from state to state much more than they did in Lee's day. For example, I have lived in 8 states, so where is "home"? But in Lee's day, people were often born, raised, and died within 50 miles, so "home" was less the nation and much more their state. And the States just were not as centrally governed as what we are now. Now we have a much stronger federal government and much weaker states.

When people decide that Lee was a traitor, they are changing history to fit their current definition by flipping the priority of state vs country and thus changing who is and is not a traitor to their "homeland".

This is just one example of this that I have observed this week, of history changing before my eyes.

We had the dubious opportunity to live in Kentucky for a couple of years. It was a real education.

Being basically from the intermountain west I thought it quite backward to meet people who had "never been out of McCracken County" in their 80 years of life and were quite proud of the fact. Most of the kids my kids went to school with had plans to marry and stay in their home town for the rest of their lives. They couldn't deal with the prospect of being more than a stones throw away from mom and dad. And McCracken County is only 268 sq. miles.....a pipsqueak midget compared to western counties.

Whole different world down there......

Wait, wait, wait...

Declaring Lee a traitor is changing history?? Did the Union not consider him a traitor and enemy?? Is that not history?

Maybe I've misunderstood but I agree the Status quo changes and that can change the filter through which we view history but is that such a bad thing? It's why most of us now find the priesthood ban so disturbing. But my point is Lee being a traitor is not terribly inaccurate from certain historical point of view.

Full disclosure, I'm Canadian but am reasonably self educated on the civil war. I'm only peripherally aware of the current controversy down there but am not super surprised people want celebratory statues removed from certain public places. It's possible my ignorance is showing though.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:45 pmDeclaring Lee a traitor is changing history?? Did the Union not consider him a traitor and enemy?? Is that not history?

Ah, but history is Silly Putty. Remember when our Prophets, Seers and Revelators were praising Mr. Hitler for his abundance of "deep commitment, genuine sincerity and real enthusiasm" in leading a "worthy cause"?
http://imgur.com/a/xJF1T

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:42 pm

LaMachina wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:45 pmDeclaring Lee a traitor is changing history?? Did the Union not consider him a traitor and enemy?? Is that not history?

Ah, but history is Silly Putty. Remember when our Prophets, Seers and Revelators were praising Mr. Hitler for his abundance of "deep commitment, genuine sincerity and real enthusiasm" in leading a "worthy cause"?
http://imgur.com/a/xJF1T

I almost think this proves that the Present is the silly putty. It's through hindsight we can look at that quote in more concrete ways and think "holy s*#!, that is an incredibly embarrassing position to take!!"

Well most of us anyways. Hitler may be making a comeback???

One thing that does scare me about this status quo stuff is memory holing unsavory things, which the church totally does.

I do wonder what things our great-grandchildren will look back on and think - what horribly confused, backward people our progenitors were.

History is written by the victors.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:13 pm History is written by the victors.

Not for ever. As time passes, historians grow more and more willing to examine and consider the opinions of those defeated. The Indian genocides were seen as a good thing in their day, fulfilling the United States' "Manifest Destiny" to span from sea to sea. Now they are held to be atrocities.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:45 pm Wait, wait, wait...

Declaring Lee a traitor is changing history?? Did the Union not consider him a traitor and enemy?? Is that not history?

Maybe I've misunderstood but I agree the Status quo changes and that can change the filter through which we view history but is that such a bad thing? It's why most of us now find the priesthood ban so disturbing. But my point is Lee being a traitor is not terribly inaccurate from certain historical point of view.

Full disclosure, I'm Canadian but am reasonably self educated on the civil war. I'm only peripherally aware of the current controversy down there but am not super surprised people want celebratory statues removed from certain public places. It's possible my ignorance is showing though.

I don't consider Lee a traitor in the usual sense of that word. I think the people of the South were wrong headed. The civil war was the outgrowth of a philosophical argument. A disagreement that neither side was willing to give way on. Two brothers coming to blows.

The people of the South became the enemy and Lee was mistakenly willing to lead their military.

The monuments were built to honor men who fought bravely for a cause they sincerely believed in. Those among whom they lived, who thought highly of them, wanted their sacrifice not to have been in vain. It's understandable and having lived in the South I can tell you some of them still carry hard feelings about losing the war.
But none of that makes their cause right. In this day and age I doubt very few southerners would feel good about a return to slavery. And those racists that would, should be ashamed of themselves (there's that word...shame...)

But the better deterrent to open racism is truth, not violence. They are ignorant, bigoted people but the Constitution guarantees their freedom of speech. America is and always should be a venue to make an argument in a search for truth. When someone has to resort to violence to shut someone else up, they have already lost the argument even if they were right.

I grew up in the Deep South. I haven't lived there in decades, and have no desire to, but these past couple of weeks have been painfully full of cognitive dissonance almost as bad as when my shelf fell. I never once connected any of those statues with slavery. They were so prevalent, in nearly every town, no matter the size. They were just part of the landscape.

I couldn't believe it when I saw the news reports of the statues being pulled down or carted off. It felt like my heritage and history were being obliterated, and I shed tears of sorrow and bewilderment. None of the things I was hearing were anything I had been taught. That may seem incredible to anyone not from the South, and I do feel shame about my ignorance, but it was a shock to me to see those memorials vandalized and spat upon. I really had no idea there was a problem with them.

Glossing over history doesn't do anyone any favours. It just makes the truth harder to swallow when it inevitably shows up.

The LDS Church leaders do have some bragging rights. If anyone asks the rhetorical question, "Who died and made you an authority?", they can name their immediate predecessor.

###
Want another one?

How many Mormon apologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Two. One to change the bulb and another to claim it has never changed.

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:54 amHow many Mormon apologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Just one, but he will insist that there was no screwing involved, it was purely ceremonial.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:45 pm Wait, wait, wait...

Declaring Lee a traitor is changing history?? Did the Union not consider him a traitor and enemy?? Is that not history?

Maybe I've misunderstood but I agree the Status quo changes and that can change the filter through which we view history but is that such a bad thing? It's why most of us now find the priesthood ban so disturbing. But my point is Lee being a traitor is not terribly inaccurate from certain historical point of view.

Full disclosure, I'm Canadian but am reasonably self educated on the civil war. I'm only peripherally aware of the current controversy down there but am not super surprised people want celebratory statues removed from certain public places. It's possible my ignorance is showing though.

Traitor to WHAT is the question. He had a choice, be a traitor to Virginia, or decide his "greater loyalty" was to the US. The US was not like it is today. A good comparison might be, if Canada decides to pull out of the United Nations, and the U S says, "wait a minute, you can't do that. We agreed!" So, the countries loyal to the UN fight against the countries that want to pull out of the UN. Whose side are you on? Well, of course you are on Canada's side because to be loyal to the UN, you have to be a traitor to your country. Now in two hundred years when the UN is looking back at history, because now the UN is the most powerful organization and Canada lost and was forced to stay in the UN, and we go back and declare you a traitor to the UN? That is hardly fair. That is changing history because the UN today is not "your country" but maybe in 200 years, it will be seen the way the United States are/is seen today. See, is it as the United States "is seen", or "are seen"? Are we one country, or a group of states. Back then we were a group of states, not "one country" like we view ourselves today.

See, you have to understand the past, otherwise, you can't help but rewrite history to your present understanding.

So, no, Robert E Lee was not a traitor to his home of Virginia. His home was no more the "US" than yours is the United Nations. Yes, his state belonged to a group of states that had decided to form a nation, but it was not the nation it is today. That is what confuses people when they apply what is today as if it was what was then.

And, no, the military leaders at the time did not consider him a traitor, I can't quote it exactly, but I have read some thing somewhere that was correspondence between Lee and ?Grant? Where the Union ?general? said basically that he understood Lee's decision and that if the situation were reversed and his state wanted to pull out, that he would also fight for his state rather than the Union.

And, yes, I have lived in the South. At one time we lived in the slave quarters of an old Southern Mansion along the Gulf Coast, just down the street from the home of Jefferson Davis (Persident of the Confederacy) that southern mansion and the slave quarters got blown away in a hurricane.

LSOF wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:57 pm

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:13 pm History is written by the victors.

Not for ever. As time passes, historians grow more and more willing to examine and consider the opinions of those defeated. The Indian genocides were seen as a good thing in their day, fulfilling the United States' "Manifest Destiny" to span from sea to sea. Now they are held to be atrocities.

Not forever, only until a new victor takes their place. The battles are in terms of thinking now, largely.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:49 am

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:54 amHow many Mormon apologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Just one, but he will insist that there was no screwing involved, it was purely ceremonial.

Oh myyyyyyy.....

Fair points alas and Palerider. Calling him traitorous is at best a vast simplification and at worst just plain wrong.

It is clear however that the understanding of history is skewed by a huge array of personal historical viewpoints. From my outsider perspective arguments that slavery wasn't the main issue in the conflict seems to be disingenuous but you do see that argument proffered by many in the old confederate states. Are they changing history or just offering a perspective?

Maybe the changing status quo is not so much changing history as giving more weight to an alternative viewpoint.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:19 pm Fair points alas and Palerider. Calling him traitorous is at best a vast simplification and at worst just plain wrong.

It is clear however that the understanding of history is skewed by a huge array of personal historical viewpoints. From my outsider perspective arguments that slavery wasn't the main issue in the conflict seems to be disingenuous but you do see that argument proffered by many in the old confederate states. Are they changing history or just offering a perspective?

Maybe the changing status quo is not so much changing history as giving more weight to an alternative viewpoint.

I agree. To make the argument that the war was about the ability to secede is only 25% of the issue. Like one brother saying to the other, "you can't tell me what to do!"

The real issue was definitely slavery.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:03 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:49 am

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:54 amHow many Mormon apologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Just one, but he will insist that there was no screwing involved, it was purely ceremonial.

Oh myyyyyyy.....

Too much? Ok, I'll restate it in church-approved apoligeicese: although some of the light bulbs may or may not have been installed in the normal physical manner, some statements that were made several decades later suggest that at least some of the installations we're not for the purpose of producing incandescence but served a purely symbolic role and those bulbs would not be required to provide illumination until sometime later in the eternities.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:02 am

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:03 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:49 am
Just one, but he will insist that there was no screwing involved, it was purely ceremonial.

Oh myyyyyyy.....

Too much? Ok, I'll restate it in church-approved apoligeicese: although some of the light bulbs may or may not have been installed in the normal physical manner, some statements that were made several decades later suggest that at least some of the installations we're not for the purpose of producing incandescence but served a purely symbolic role and those bulbs would not be required to provide illumination until sometime later in the eternities.

In light of the ongoing discussion of changing light bulbs, I have heard it argued that apologists use history like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination.