Considerst Thou The Beam in Thine Own Eye?

One huge short-sight we often have as human beings, is trying to force our current world view unto those in the past. One area I think this is especially evident is in the way we view scripture or church history. In the 21^st century, when the newspaper quotes someone, there’s really not much question of whether or not those were the exact words they said. We have video and audio recording equipment that allows us to capture exactly what they said when they said it. While we may question whether or not the quotations are used in context, the word-for-word accuracy of the statement is generally an assumption. It is foolish to assume this for past eras though. Any historical documentation from the pre-recording era is likely to come from first-hand oral accounts, sometimes long after the fact. Any quotations are probably paraphrased. At best, there was someone at the event trained in shorthand who was taking notes, but even this will fall short of the word perfect accuracy we expect. 

The New Testament is an excellent case study for this issue. We have three accounts of essentially the same events from the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Please note that none of these men were among the twelve apostles. They were not physically present at many of the events they reported. Also, most scholars agree that the gospels were written around ten to twenty years after the fact. If you know a little about how the mind works, then you know that our memory does not work like a tape recorder. Instead when we ‘remember’ things, we actually reconstruct things in our mind. Our present knowledge and experiences actually change and influence the way we remember our past. I won’t go into the details at this point, but let’s just say that eye-witness accounts are only semi-reliable. What I’m getting at, is that it is crazy to read the Bible with an assumption that it is a word-for-word accurate account of Jesus’ life and sayings. I’m not suggesting that we can disregard it because of these limitations, but we need to recognize the human limitations of the writers. They were doing the best they could, but it is not 100% accurate. 

There are contradictions between the three gospels. Some of the more ignorant critics see this as a case against the historicity of the bible. It is really a case for it. Recognizing the limitations of the time period, it would be more suspect if all accounts of Jesus’ life did line up word-for-word. There should be some differences between independent accounts, especially if they are being given from memory. While I’m on the topic, let’s explore Joseph Smith’s accounts of the First Vision. Most church members are only familiar with the one found printed in the Pearl of Great Price that missionaries quote in the discussions. This one is actually quite late. It was written in 1838, eighteen years after the first vision occurred. There are three or four other accounts from much earlier that do not line up. In some of the earlier accounts, for example, Joseph reports seeing only one being instead of two. Some accounts he leaves out the part about feeling constrained by some dark power. You get the idea, there are some pretty big discrepancies. This is a cause of concern for some people when they hear about it. Was he just making the story up? Did he embellish and add details as time went on? Again, if you have a basic understanding of how memory works, you should expect these changes. Our memories about events actually change and are molded by our later experiences. The details of what actually happened in the vision, such as the exact words he heard, or whether he saw one person or two are pretty much lost to history. Joseph himself probably didn’t even know at the end of his life. That’s just how the mind works. 

Another thing we must take into account is the difference in values between our modern society and those of the past. As Richard Dawkin’s states:

It is a commonplace that good historians don't judge statements from past times by the standards of their own. Abraham Lincoln, like Huxley, was ahead of his time, yet his views on matters of race also sound backwardly racist in ours. Here he is in a debate in 1858 with Stephen A. Douglas:

 I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Dawkins, Richard (2008-01-16). The God Delusion (pp. 302-303). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

This is from Abraham Lincoln. Does that put the racist statements of Brigham Young into perspective a little bit? I would argue that if either of these great men were born into our time, they would not say the things they did. I would also argue that if we were born into their time, we would be no better. It is no great moral achievement to not be a racist in an age where racism is condemned. But choosing to be a little less racist than everyone else in a time when slavery is condoned may be an act of great courage. It is important to remember that. 

While I recognize that there are still some issues in church history that do not have easy answers, a good deal of the things that are brought up by critics of the church become non-issues when we have a mature understanding of what things were actually like in past times. I don’t think open and uncensored discussion of our church's history needs to destroy testimonies. If people are better educated about the historical context the events occurred in, and we are able to remember that the people involved are normal human beings with common weaknesses, we have nothing to fear in being open and candid.