thumb2

It’s Time to Stop Calling Your Grandpa a Liar

Those who indict prior generations for "lying" because their histories differ from modern-day telling's in scope or emphasis, plainly demonstrate what anthropologists call "ethnocentrism." That's a problem. And it's time to hold these accusers more accountable for the real-life, human impact of their allegations.
Part one in a video series on history and truth in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with a specific focus on the growing cottage industry of “Mormon”-oriented podcasts and social media influencers, and more especially those whom they have managed to persuade.

https://youtu.be/nDiFO1OHC3w

How many of you were taught in your American history class about a period where the CIA supported Latin America coups and even some of the right-wing dictators who took over? Or maybe you heard about tens of thousands of poor, mentally ill, and racial minority folks forcibly sterilized in the last century on U.S. soil for being considered “unfit to procreate”? 

If not, is that because your American history teacher was simply “lying to you”?  

Of course not.  We all know it’s more complicated than that.

Okay, so how many of you grew up hearing long, detailed stories from your grandfather about the full scope of brutality and trauma from his experience serving in the war? 

Me neither. Does that make our grandfathers liars too? 

Nope. Neither of those answers makes much sense. Yet that’s precisely how many have been persuaded to see the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Evolving ways of doing history. Up until recently, most people took for granted that it was a good thing that stories of the past—from American history to Church history—were shared with an emphasis on encouraging and inspiring elements. That’s just how many approached the historical craft in previous generations.

Anthropologists have a word for unfairly imposing your own historical and cultural biases on other people. They call it “ethnocentrism.”

And there were some real advantages to that—the way it confirmed our highest aspirations and reinforced our better angels, while directing collective attention forward in a hopeful way.

So … was it wrong for these historians to emphasize the goodness and miraculous events of the past?

Not at all. Stories are always and inevitably told for some reason and in hopes of conveying certain messages. The compiler of the Book of Mormon acknowledges, for instance, his own desire to “show” unto descendants in his own record “what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers.” 

So, you see—telling American or Church history in a way that reaffirms higher truths or a sense of appreciation for God’s goodness is not wrong.  

Yet, there are ways this approach has sometimes been too limited. In a real sense, an overly positive narrative of (any) history is inaccurate in a way that “cannot be sustained.” 

Here’s the really important question: Does this more positive approach to history necessarily reflect behind-the-scenes deception and “lies” on the part of teachers, historians, and sweet-sounding grandparents everywhere? 

Even the most ardent social justice activists and the most cynical observers will find it difficult to argue this with a straight face. 

There’s no question that the United States government, and the Church—like organizations everywhere—have privileged certain information in their message to the world, while sometimes keeping other aspects more private. All institutions do that—and often for very good reasons aimed at fulfilling their positive mission in the world.   

To insist that any such editorial decisions arise categorically from greed, power-hungriness, or a desire to deceive is hardly fair. Yet that’s precisely the incendiary claim many continue to make—showing little openness to even the possibility of benevolent leadership with earnest desires to do good—and paying virtually no attention to these kinds of clear and obvious generational differences in how tough questions have been addressed differently by historians of different eras.  

Is that really so hard to appreciate and acknowledge? 

Modern ethnocentrism. Anthropologists have a word for unfairly imposing your own historical and cultural biases on other people. 

They call it “ethnocentrism.”

The classic case, of course, was African societies centuries ago condemned as wholly inferior and deficient by white colonizers in reference to their own European standards. When we evaluate accounts from previous generations with nothing but suspicion and disdain—devoid of any appreciation for the profound differences in cultural and historical contexts—we perpetuate similar kinds of breathtaking ignorance and arrogance. 

Remember, this was the same generation who came home from the war and didn’t talk about it. 

This was the generation that heard whispers of abuse or mental illness happening in their extended families and (mostly) didn’t talk about it.  

We should be grateful these patterns changed significantly. Abuse and trauma need to be talked about directly and openly.  So do difficult historical matters.

But can we really blame those who believed that talking less about some of the more difficult stuff was the best way to help those they loved to find purpose and move forward in life?

Let’s relish history as a precious blessing that can unite us all—rather than a weapon to turn us against each other.

You bet we can. We’ve become really good at blaming them, haven’t we? We have become extremely skilled at taking the values and mindsets of our own tell-all, Therapy and Talk Show Generation and imposing them on top of the Silent Generation.

And we come away feeling … what?

So enlightened.  And so virtuous and woke.  And smart—oh so smart.

But can’t we see what’s really happening—with some of these commentators declaring “the truth”—the “Real Truth” about the Church of Jesus Christ?

Rita Skeeter, alive and well. In the Harry Potter series, a journalist named Rita Skeeter has remarkable skill in “ferreting around” looking for more mess-ups from the powers that be—and working up everyday events into “something sinister.” 

In an article about loveable Hagrid, for instance, she laments this teacher’s abusive “campaign of intimidation” towards his students and declares to her readers scandalously that she has “unearthed evidence that Hagrid is not—as he has always pretended—a pure-blood wizard.” 

When Harry Potter confronts her attacks, she responds, “Our readers have a right to the truth, Harry.”

Sound familiar? 

Of course, it does. We have Rita Skeeters of our own—all around us. With columnist gigs, premiere podcasts—even billboard campaigns….

So. Much. Scandal!!

A thought experiment. Laying aside Hogwarts now, think about what I’m saying more seriously and personally.  Imagine if someone approached your own life in an attempt to give the most cynical and jaded account possible—something truly Tabloid worthy. They really did their homework—going about visiting with ex-lovers, gathering statements from anyone who’s ever held a grudge toward you, and one person you hurt years ago in a thoughtless moment … and a real juicy story from someone in whom you once confided your greatest regret.

This journalist hack then writes it all up, prioritizing all its juiciest, goriest details—and then publishes it to all the world as the “real truth” about you … for everyone to appreciate.

Here’s, of course, the most important question:  Is the most cynical telling of anyone’s story actually true?

Cartoonishly evil caricatures. We’re certainly used to hearing and seeing these kinds of exposes all the time—about Trump, about Biden, about Fauci, Zuckerburg, and pretty much anyone of importance.

Someone approached me the other day and said “did you know Biden is actually a child predator?”

“Come on, man,” as our President would say. Real human beings are multi-dimensional—with moral dilemmas just like our favorite characters in classic literature.

And even though we’ll never have the full story on some things, more in-depth scholarship like the Joseph Smith Papers have revealed more and more powerful details every year, like an archeological dig.  And like a math class, the deeper you go, the messier and more beautiful it gets. Yet too often, people end up spinning their wheels haggling over historical minutia showing up in someone’s Kirtland journal—parsing details that are unknowable, unresolvable, and unverifiable.

It’s time to stop the arrogant, ethnocentric analyses of history. And to stop feeling smart and pretending we’re somehow on a higher moral plane when accusing previous generations of outright lying, now that we’re in possession of additional details. 

And for heaven’s sake, let’s stop giving so much attention to those who generate outrage based on all the above.

A plea from the dust. Imagine, instead, being grateful that we have so much rich detail to learn from in our histories today—yes, the good, the bad, and the ugly … so we can take important lessons for our lives today.

From the dust comes the stirring plea, “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”

What if we actually honored that ancient plea—with a little bit more humility and a lot less snark.

Relishing history as a precious blessing that can unite us all—rather than a weapon to turn us against each other.

That’s my prayer.  Thanks for listening.

 

Grateful you’d hear me out! Check out “Come Back, Come Back, Wherever You Are” to go deeper. 

About the author

Jacob Z. Hess

Jacob Hess is a contributing editor at Deseret News and publishes longer-form pieces at PublishPeace.net. He co-authored "You're Not as Crazy as I Thought, But You're Still Wrong" and “The Power of Stillness: Mindful Living for Latter-day Saints.” He has a Ph.D. in clinical-community psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Jacob is a staff writer and Latter-day Saint Voices editor at Deseret News.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Kinda Pregnant, Kinda Forgettable, Mostly Raunchy

Amy Schumer is a mood.  About ten years ago it seemed like she was about to break out as the next great all-American comedian. But her material never softened. She never found a safe sitcom to mold her jokes into something that would be network-approved. She had her hard stand-up audience and she kept it. “Kinda Pregnant” is perhaps the most Amy Schumer film yet made, and certainly the most since “Trainwreck.” If you like the Amy-Schumer schtick, I imagine you will like this movie. The film is mostly an extension of Schumer’s 2019 special “Growing,” in which she talked about her own pregnancy and her experience with it.  In this film we learn that Schumer’s character Lainy has always wanted to be a mom, but she is now forty and her boyfriend is finally ready to propose. But alas he wasn’t proposing marriage, but proposing having sex with another woman. She soon learns that her best friend Kate is pregnant. Worried that Kate is becoming closer friends with their also pregnant co-worker, Lainy tries on a fake pregnancy belly at a maternity store, and when the clerk accidentally sees her wearing it and is very kind, Lainy decides she’ll pretend to be pregnant. She goes to a pregnancy yoga class, and meets Megan who she makes instant friends with. This means Lainy is living a split life, one pregnant and one unpregnant. There is not a lot of territory left to mine in the fake pregnancy category. Between “Glee,” “Gone Girl,” “Labor Pains,” “Preggoland,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Baby Mama” the plot device has gone from comedy to drama to action and back again. In typical Schumer fashion she goes gross-out raunchy, which occasionally lapses into a serious talk about the physical and emotional realities of pregnancy and how society treats them.  On that final front, the film does have some interesting observations. The physical realities of pregnancy are weirdly under-discussed, for a society that seems to hold pregnancy as a high honor. But ultimately whatever positive message was there falls apart for two reasons. First the film wants to celebrate family and child birth, but feels the constant need to hedge its endorsement so as not to risk Schumer’s progressive bona fides. And the entire thing is lost in a cavalcade of profanity and gross out jokes about everything from masturbation to farting. I watched “Dog Man” a few weeks ago, a movie for 8-year-old boys, and I’m honestly not sure which movie had more juvenile fart jokes.  The movie does have a few very funny scenes, but for a Happy Madison production, it’s unusually slow. And the writing doesn’t give us the kind of endlessly quotable lines Happy Madison is usually known for. In terms of the comedy, the movie is less bad and more just forgettable. The movie has a very female sensibility, given its subject matter, but it’s presented with the kind of raunchy comedy that has a smaller female audience. If you love Amy Schumer’s comedy, especially if you’ve loved her more recent materials, and you have recently had a baby and feel like no one else really gets what you’re going through, there is a good chance this movie will be among your favorites. Though I’d still recommend using a service that will clean up the worst excesses of the vulgarity—this is a film that earns its R-rating. But if you aren’t in that small group, I imagine the movie might amuse you, but otherwise it will leave you feeling insipid and put off.  One and a half out of five stars. “Kinda Pregnant” premiers on Netflix today, February 5, 2025.

A Mindfulness Journey to “Happily Ever After”

Marriage is hard enough in this challenging world. Patterns of reactivity, pressure, and resentment between partners can make it that much harder. But what if we learned to not do that—and to do something else instead?

Why I Wear the Temple Garment

A recent New York Times story on temple garments did a good job of showing many sides of a sensitive story. But there was one side they left out: What spiritual meaning do they bring to the faithful?

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This