In what I believe is a most remarkable book, thus far, Alexander Piatigorsky, in his exploration of Free Masonry, struck a theme cord very hard in my mind concerning picking any historical theme to write on, and in this particular case of his, on Free Masonry, with this statement: "One thing, however, seems to me to be an absolute condition for forming a theme: you cannot be negative about it, for an entirely negative approach is always a self-blinding one." (Who's Afraid of Freemasons?, Barnes & Noble Books, 1997: 11).
The reason this struck me is due to my discussing, analyzing, exploring, and learning about the LDS scriptures. Critics usually contend the only way to approach them is to view them as totally phony, faked documents pretending to masquerade as real history. That is the "objective" approach we are always told. I have my serious doubts that Piatigorsky's comment will change anything, but it is a reminder that it is far more important to take things seriously of their own accord when exploring them, i.e., giving them the benefit of the doubt first, then exploring if anything significant occurs, rather than approaching all things as jabberwocky and gewgaw as a supposedly objective person does. I am specifically thinking of the Book of Mormon, which critics more often than not will approach it from an entirely negative stance in all out war against whatever it says.
Very powerful insight. It gets people's attention when something is said in a positive study better than a negative.I call negative responses ''eye rollers'' cuz i just roll my eyes lol
Posted by: gavin | October 08, 2009 at 09:26 PM
So true!
Posted by: Kerry Shirts | October 10, 2009 at 04:31 PM
That approach revolutionised the study of Jewish mysticism. The late Gershom Scholem, when studying the Zohar, started out with the approach that it was either as anicent as it said it was, or it put ancient ideas into a modern form. In the course of his research he turned up the opposite, but the research was richer because he gave the subject the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: volgadon | October 20, 2009 at 09:51 AM