Mark
15 September 2008
I was flipping through the September Ensign today and was feeling a little frustrated. I love truly faith-promoting stories and articles and expositions on doctrines. Yet I do not respond well to oversimplification or superficial versions of history (personal or collective). This is not to say that the Ensign is grossly guilty of lacking substance. In large part I feel the Ensign to regularly include a wealth of profound and inspiring content. Yet for me there exists a chronic frustration in its deliberate avoidance of subjects that paint a more complex - and real - version of our faith.
I am not advocating that the Ensign devote an issue to the Mountain Meadows massacre or confront the institution of polygamy in Joseph Smith's day head-on. As already discussed in other posts, the Ensign may not be the proper forum for these types of articles. Yet its surgical avoidance of these topics can sometimes be interpreted as intentionally deceptive or, at best, misrepresentative of reality.
As I flipped through the Ensign, feeling it difficult to accept some of the articles as genuine and respectful towards the complexity and depth of human faith, I distinctly remember thinking, "The Ensign is a good magazine. Yet I wish there was a way I could change it a little bit. I wish I could let someone know that I'm not satisfied."
As I was closing the last page, a sentence caught my eye: "The Ensign presents a realistic portrait of the lives and challenges of Latter-day saints. Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Neither Agree nor Disagree - Agree - Strongly Agree".
Funny how sometimes it seems like someone is listening to your thoughts.
Come to find out, an Ensign survey is being conducted. Submit your feelings and experiences! This is a chance to voice your feelings regarding this Church publication. I would particularly suggest that you fill in the last portion of the survey, "Please share any other comments or suggestions you may have." SOMEONE is going to read what we write.
Do it for a better Ensign.
6 comments:
This Article appeared in the September 2007 Ensign. I thought it did a pretty good job of discussing the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
I do agree that Ensign isn't always the most academic of magazines. However, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes as intellectuals in the Church we have a tendency to believe that our approach to learning and seeking truth is inherently better than those of less academic backgrounds. That's not necessarily true. Faith and gospel knowledge are developed through closeness with the Holy Ghost. I'd feel comfortable arguing that as long as reading the Ensign provides us with the opportunity to feel the Spirit. It's accomplishing its purpose.
What specific changes would you like to see to make the Ensign better.
I submitted the Ensign survey in response to Mark’s post. In the comment section, I gave my honest opinion of the specific changes I feel that could help improve the Ensign, an emblem of our Faith. My main concern is for the readers who are frustrated or have to take extra effort to understand the predominant idioms and Anglo-American culture embedded in the stories. This can lead to a feeling of tension than a feeling of the Spirit.
Having grown up in the Church and worked as a translator during General Conference while at BYU, I became aware of how culturally insensitive and biased the Ensign can be. There's much lost in translation. Even in the Liahona, the official Church international magazine, the same issues present themselves. The stories are mainly from a Western perspective. If we are indeed God's children and our Church is world-wide, then my solution would be to see an increase in the number of stories from members living in developing countries who have maintained their native cultures, while building their relationship with God.
Also, I enjoy reading conversion stories from various faiths. As I mentioned in my response to Mark’s Revolution: When?, the definition of martyr means “witness” and there are certainly many witnesses or testimonies from other lands. If this were to happen, we would appreciate and understand people of other faiths, traditions, and history. When we ignore their stories, we are ignorant of our relationship with each other. As the scriptures (Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrines and Covenants) show us, God's people are not from only one land, one tradition, or one history. Thus, this can benefit American members who tend to be ethnocentric.
The gospel is true... ps
In response to Kenny's question, "What specific changes would you like to see to make the Ensign better," I would start by first emphasizing that it is a good magazine. I am not suggesting a complete restructuring and alteration of the magazine, just an attitude/approach shift. The suggestions I have are subtle (but significant).
Take, for example, the article in September's issue, My Dear and Beloved Companion: The Letters of Joseph and Emma Smith. While illuminating some touching correspondence and professions of love between Emma and Joseph, I found that there was never a single mention of times in which their marital relationship felt tension or strain. I seem to remember Emma having difficulty with the idea of sharing her husband with other women, for example. Are we to believe that their marriage was completely devoid of inter-spousal conflict? One might get that impression reading this article... but it is far from the truth.
I guess I am just advocating that we write things as they are, not necessarily as we (mistakenly) think they should be. The Spirit speaketh things as they are and were and will be. Are we not all striving to be mouth pieces of the Spirit?
I enjoyed Anonymous's comments about the western domination of Ensign perspectives. Thank you - that wasn't on the top of my list of things to change, but now I think it probably should be.
PS -
When we choose to cut out important parts of our personal and collective histories, something is lost, even if (especially if!) those parts are difficult, challenging, or unpleasant.
I struggle with the same thing. And I’ll admit to having similar concerns over General Conference as well. Sometimes I leave Conference or finish reading the Ensign and feel a little let down. I don’t necessarily know what I expect when I engage these media, but I often leave feeling a little bit empty. Certainly part of me feels uplifted spiritually, and I believe what is shared to be true. But I want an additional layer to be added.
The likely cause of my feelings of dejection is the disconnect between myself and the intended audience of these communications. I’m not necessarily an unintended audience member, and I’m not necessarily all that different from other readers of the Ensign. But because maybe what I expect/ want from my experience is different from the readers that the authors had in mind, it’s more difficult for me to have a satisfying experience. Perhaps this is sounding completely obvious. But it’s helps to write it out.
The thing that I’m realizing is that what I’m feeling is not really anyone’s fault. It’s understandable. The best communicators know their audience and speak directly to their audience. And I think that the contributors to the Ensign and the speakers at General Conference have a good understanding of who they are speaking to… a world-wide audience of millions of church members. I guess they can’t help but speak in general terms and avoid the things that people wouldn’t easily understand without the ability to engage in face-to-face dialogue.
I come from a camp that believes human communication is much more than just a series of one-way exchanges (i.e. person A sends message to person B, person B receives message). Communication passes through several filters (e.g. what the speaker intends to say, what the speaker intends the audience to understand, what the audience thinks the speaker is saying, what the audience understands from what the speaker is saying) that create complex and diverse experiences for the senders and receivers of messages. As a member of an audience, I can put up different filters and have a different experience based on how I choose to receive/ process/ understand the communication.
It’s like during the Priesthood Session of General Conference when one of the General Authorities opens his talk with, “Tonight, I’d like to speak to the young brethren of the priesthood. The duties of a Deacon...” I don’t think hearing the speaker address a particularized audience should give me license to tune out (although tuning out might be my natural reaction). I might miss out on something if I choose to compartmentalize what the speaker says and label it as “things that don’t apply to me.” What I should do is put on a critical lens and allow the message to offer me what it can. I’m not always good at that though.
What I hope to do going forward (thanks for encouraging me to think through these things Mark) is seek to better incorporate myself into the audience and be open to what is being said for what it’s worth to those who are the intended recipients. I’m trying to have a more complex and engaging experience with things like the Ensign or General Conference by not reacting based on my dissatisfaction but trying to enjoy those media for the purpose those media seek to fulfill.
But there’s still something missing right? That’s why your essay “Give Us a Forum” is such an important thing to figure out—so we can have the best of both worlds.
"No matter how sharp you focus on a particular object, or how highly you specialize; you miss most of it, no matter what it is. So, no person has the same experiences or reactions as the other. You see a different thing. Everyone sees selective..."
- Hugh Nibley
I want change.
The gospel is true....ps
Post a Comment