Lives of the Saints: Writing Mormon Biography and Autobiography
Jill Mulvay Derr, editor
In 2001 I was invited to give a paper at the annual symposium of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University. It was a two-day conference featuring some outstanding speakers who addressed some aspect of "writing Mormon biography and autobiography." I felt quite privileged to stand at the same podium with distinguished LDS scholars such as Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, Carol Cornwall Madsen, Steven Harper, Ronald Barney, Cherry Silver, and Keith Erekson, all of whom have written best selling Mormon-themed books.
Later the papers given at that conference were assembled by Jill Mulvay Derr, the symposium coordinator, and published as a collection.
The title of my paper was "'Oh Say, What is Truth' in Mormon Life-Story Writing?" In it I highlighted the difficulties involved in striving for absolute truth in the memoirs and biographies we write. The opening paragraphs establish the issue I discuss in the chapter:
“O Say, What is Truth? Tis the fairest gem that the riches of worlds can produce.” Truth, the lyricist tells us, is “eternal, unchanged, evermore.”
But in the context of life story writing, this jewel we call “truth” is less absolute. Family stories are handed down from one generation to the next, usually by word of mouth, changing color and texture from teller to teller. In some ways, they are like the “flying rumors” described by the poet Alexander Pope:
The flying rumors gather’d as they roll’d,
Scarce any tale was sooner heard than told;
And all who told it added something new,
And all who heard it made enlargements too.Even where the witness to an event is also the writer—as in a memoir—the details are likely to have shifted and settled between the time they are perceived and the time they are published.
Is the result still a true story? Does it matter?
Why I Stay: The Challenges of Discipleship for Contemporary Mormons
Robert A. Rees, editor
Every year one of the best attended Sunstone Symposium sessions is one titled "Why I Stay." For those who are unfamiliar with Sunstone, it is a three-day conference featuring speakers and panels on a variety of subjects pertaining to Mormonism. Most of those who attend Sunstone are seekers--men and women who are not satisfied with the rote statements of faith given over and over again at church meetings, people who want to dig deeper and who sometimes, as a result, discover information that shakes their belief system. Many Sunstone attendees are interested in hearing how others of a like mind have reconciled their continued Church membership with the dissonance they find in its practice and teachings.
In 2008 I was one of five individuals who was invited to participate in the "Why I Stay" panel. After my presentation, Robert Rees, a poet, literary critic and scholar of Mormon studies, asked if he might use my talk in a book he was preparing that would consist of select "Why I Stay" talks given through the years. His book was published in 2011 and includes talks given by noted Mormons such as Gregory Prince, Armand Mauss, Claudia Bushman, Thomas F. Rogers, Mary Lythgoe Bradford, Chase Peterson, Lavina Fielding Anderson, and Charlotte England, among others.
My talk, titled "Taking the Long View," was one of those included as a chapter in the book. In it I gave a personal narrative to explain why I continued to remain in the Church, mentioning some experiences that strengthened my feeling of belonging, as well as some that did not. Here is an excerpt from the concluding paragraphs of that chapter:
I have not been called to lead the Church and would never presume to preach my sometimes unorthodox ideas as doctrine. Nevertheless, there are many things about the Church that make no sense to me. I think women are just as capable of receiving revelation as men and should be given an opportunity to serve in our presiding bodies. I think the Church should support those who decide to enter into a committed same-sex relationship. Believing in the value of marriage as we do, we should be on the side of those who are proponents of it. I believe the Church is too anxious to keep its priesthood control centralized, too quick to put down uncorrelated ideas at the expense of creativity. I would like to see the Church spend more resources on humanitarian service and less on proselytizing....
I’m optimistic in thinking changes will occur in these areas, but I suspect they will happen slowly and in some cases probably not in my lifetime. In studying the past, however, I see favorable signs for the future. We are now told, “we have nothing to do with polygamy,” which is good—although we still perform polygamous eternal marriages. We now grant the priesthood to all worthy male members, a gratifying, though belated, change of direction. There are indications that the Church’s official attitude toward our gay brothers and sisters is at least becoming less strident, though many members have a long way to go in this regard.
....
Like the Reverend King, I have a dream. In my dream I am attending a general conference of the Church. I see twelve apostles sitting on the stand. My eyes slowly scan them from left to right. I know it is in the future because some of them are wearing colored shirts. Some have facial hair. Some are persons of color. Before my eyes reach the end of the row, I wake up. I’m not sure if there are any women on that row, but I hope there are. I can’t tell if any of them is gay.
If the past is a guide, change comes as a result of people, both inside and outside the Church, raising issues that are seriously considered by our prophet and apostles, who then seek revelation to guide them. I stay, hoping that my voice and others can help prompt changes for the good, but all the while understanding my own limitations. I know that, like all fallible and imperfect humans, I could be mistaken. However, I also know that it is my Christian responsibility to speak as honestly as I can and as humbly as I am able. I stay because I believe that doing so can make a difference.
The Nauvoo City and
High Council Minutes
John S. Dinger, editor
In 2011 Signature Books was preparing to publish The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, edited by John Dinger. Because of my experience researching and writing about legal issues pertaining to the Nauvoo Period, the publisher asked if I would write the introduction.
The book is a great resource for those interested in learning how an early LDS high council worked. It also gives an inside look at the deliberations of the Nauvoo City Council, presided over by Joseph Smith, Mayor of Nauvoo. This book won the "Best Documentary Book Award" from the Mormon History Association, as well as the "Best Book Award" from the John Whitmer Historical Association.
Here is an excerpt from my introduction, in which I highlighted a few of the more colorful cases brought before the High Council:
The Nauvoo High Council conducted its business with appropriate solemnity, but the reader will smile at times at some unexpected comic relief. For instance, in January 1843, Henry Cook was summoned to appear for having sold his wife, Mary, to another man. From the evidence, it appears that Cook wed Mary not long after his first wife had died. He soon discovered that Mary “was in the habit of traveling about of nights when there was no need of it” and that she used “indecent language” around his children. She would also “insult him without cause,” refusing “to be subject to him or be under his control, boasting that she would not be governed by no man.”
Henry admitted that he had “whipped her pretty severely, … thinking that might bring her to her duty.” He also acknowledged that he had entertained an offer from someone interested in purchasing her but claimed it had been said in jest. Apparently, however, the “party making the offer held it as a bargain and so did she.”
What did the high council do? “President Hyrum Smith spoke at some length on the subject and, after giving Cook a very appropriate and severe reprimand for whipping his wife, he thought that Cook had acted as well as could be expected under his circumstances and decided that he should be acquitted.” The council affirmed the decision unanimously (pp. 438-39, Jan. 21,1843). As I read the Cook case, I couldn’t help thinking how perfect it would be as a scene in a movie about the Nauvoo experience.
On another occasion I appreciated the counsel of Joseph Smith, who offered some remarks at a general conference in April 1843 about a high council inquiry into the beliefs of Pelatiah Brown. An elderly gentleman, Brown was charged with preaching false doctrine. Smith said:
I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine (p. 455, note 42).
Then there was the case of Amasa Bonney, who must win the award for inappropriate behavior before a high council. Cited on a charge of drunkenness, Bonney showed up “in a high state of intoxication, with a bottle in his pocket; and was soon in a state of stupor sleep, in the council room, whereupon it was voted unanimously that he be cut off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (p. 559, Sept. 6, 1845). You can almost see them helping him down the front steps, someone supporting him on either side. One wonders if he continued to deny the charge?