In a little less than three weeks from now, Dana's parents are coming into town from Germany. Since we live in Denver now, that places us a lot closer to some of the LDS historical sites in Nauvoo and Kirtland, so we decided to swing up that way so they can see the sights. It will be a first for me and Dana as well. And, just to sweeten the pot, my brother Jesse and his wife Wendy live in Chicago, so it is as close to a travel hat-trick as you can get.
Anyway, the last few weeks have been witness to a lot of planning and replanning of our trip itinerary, and hotel reservations, and I have been reading a lot of reviews on hotels and restaurants and such. Among those reviews I stumbled upon more than a few reviews that had nothing to do with hotels or restaurants, but rather were reviews of Nauvoo as a city, and more specifically, reviews of Mormon culture and history.
Most of them were instantly recognizable as being beligerent, argumentative and abashedly one-sided, anti-Mormon propaganda, so I didn't read them beyond their first paragraph. Others, however, were intelligently written, and objective enough to be considered at least fair and honest, even though they were still admittedly anti-Mormon. Those I read out of curiosity, but they still left me flat, and had nothing new or compelling to say.
But all of them left me feeling something in common: sadness. I can hardly think of anything that is more melancholy than being 'anti-something.' Being anti-X is nothing more than telling people what you are not. An anti-Mormon is clearly not a fan of Mormonism, but we know nothing about what he is for. Of all the possible causes to support, we have no more information than one of the causes that he is against. The assumption could be that he is diametrically opposed to Mormonism, and in support of whatever the diametric opposite of Mormonism is, but that entire assumption is uncertain, and a dynamic and versatile concept like Mormonism cannot have a diametric opposite in the first place.
So these 'anti-X'ers spend hours of time writing down what they do not like about X, but precious little time writing about what they do like about Y. We know nothing about them and who they are. Simply what they are not. That would be akin to me writing an Antibiography in which I relate several impassioned stories that are not about me, and talk at length about the hopes and dreams I have never had.
And that is what makes me sad. Where are the stories of who these people are? I am not interested in what they do not do or what they do not believe in. It would be far more compelling, as far as I am concerned, if they would actually come out and say "I am an anti-Xer. But that is boring, so let me tell you why I am a pro-Yer" If a person tells you who they are, you have the option to relate and understand them on a human level. But if all they tell you is who they are not, then you are no closer to relating to them and understanding them than if they spoke to you in Martian.
I have no problem with their beliefs, no matter what they are. They are free to believe anything in the world they want, and are free to express those beliefs until the last of the cows comes home. But it is sad that they are so caught up in telling the world what they don't believe. And so, they never really express themselves after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment