Webster defines a Revisionist as" a person who revises, or favors the revision of some accepted doctrine or theory." We see a lot of that going on at the present day. A Revisionist has a new idea or would like to change conventional morals or ways of doing things. In Politics it is called putting a different "spin" on things. One has only to look at school textbooks today to see that many authors have seen fit to revise history to fit their view of the way it should have been.
Before believing the revision or swallowing it hook line and sinker we should always question the motivation of the revisionist. There is always some reason for wanting the change. Unfortunately the reason for wanting the change usually arises out of the conduct or thinking that does not conform to the accepted doctrine or theory. Usually the changed conduct or thinking comes before the attempted revision. One becomes uncomfortable because their conduct or thinking does not conform. They do not want to change their conduct or way of thinking so they attempt to revise the doctrine or theory that is making them uncomfortable. Sometimes those who do not necessarily engage in the conduct or agree with the new way of thinking go along with the attempted revision because they are taken in by propoganda urging that everyone should be able to act and think as they please. To try and stop them or convince them otherwise is said to be intolerant of the right to be diverse.
Janice has called my attention to a good example of what is going on. In 1977, Edward Kimball, son of Pres. Spencer W. Kimball, wrote a biography about his father. Pres. Kimball died in 1985 and in 2005 Edward put out a new edition of the book "Lengthen Your Stride." Since his father was deceased it was easy to do some revision that more suited the views of the author. Apparently Edward is not active in the Church, and based upon his comments in the book he does not seem to believe that his father was a Prophet. He particulary takes issue with Pres. Kimball's views on homosexuality, calling them "midcentury views" and demeaning Pres. Kimball's views on the subject as out of date and oversimplified. In his views on the subject the President is characterized as old-fashioned and unenlightened. I will not give more detail. You can look at the book to get the gist of the revisionism.
So always question the motive of anyone who wants to revise things. What is their agenda? What are they trying prove? For example, years ago a jaw of an ape was found with a skull looking quite human. It was hailed as the missing link. Piltdown man has since been shown to be a complete fraud - a deliberate one perpetrated to try to bolster the theory of evolution. Other examples of deliberate revisions abound in the field of evolution as set forth in "Icons of Evolution." For some, the agenda comes first. Then comes the revision. Not all revisionists are completely dishonest. Many try to justify their "revision" of doctrine, theory or history by telling themselves - this is the way it really is, or really should be. Beware of the Revisionist.
4 comments:
Amen! I see this all the time on talk shows and in politics!
I was just thinking about this, and why people buy into revisionist theories so often. I think what happens is that people see that there is something wrong with the world. They want to fix it. They don't know how, so they decide to take a stand against long-held values, because they MUST be to blame. The problem is, trying to change most of those values IS the problem, but those well-intentioned revolutionists are led astray by the revisionists and radical liberalists and their ideas. We must hang on to the eternal truths. We must believe that there is under everything a real right and wrong.
Bravo. I like how one author put it, the question that should disturb the revisionist is, "Am I trying to interpret Scripture in the light of my own proclivity; or should I interpret my proclivity in the light of Scripture?" (Instead of scripture you could insert history, truth,traditional morality,etc. Instead of proclivity you could insert agenda, politics, philosophies,etc.) Incidentally, there are LDS people seriously spreading new "interpretive approaches" hoping to "support a revised understanding" of certain passages of holy scripture in order to "lead to a change in policy" that will "legitimize committed same-sex unions." Dad, your waring is right on.
I completely agree. I just talked to a business associate today whose son suffers from homosexuality, and accuses his parents of not accepting the truth, his truth. And there you have it. If truth can be movable, then it can be whatever one defines it as, and then comes the revision. With no objective truth, anything becomes acceptable, except not accepting the other person's view.
Post a Comment