Sunday, February 06, 2005

Russell M. Nelson: Father, Surgeon, Apostle

I didn't like this book nearly as much as the biographies of other Church leaders that I have read lately. I don't think that it has anything to do with Elder Nelson, but rather with some poor choices that were made in this book:

(1) It isn't really chronological, it is topical. The only section where this works well is where Elder Nelson's work as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve in different countries is presented. Going country by country instead of chronologically made it possible to have a better feel for the unfolding events in each country and keep the story straight. But elsewhere, the segregation doesn't work. In the chapter on his nine daughters, the brief bios of each woman come off sounding like little more than obituaries.

(2) HAGIOGRAPHY. I'm not interested in dwelling on the flaws of Church leaders, but I'm not impressed by saccharine representations of their perfection, either. Condie admits up front that he is presenting Elder Nelson's life as a model to follow, but I can't relate to the icky perfection here. At one point, Elder Nelson is quoted as saying that not one of their ten children even disobeyed their mother (!). More on this later.

(3) The voice here is so incredibly 'overcorrelated' that I found myself distracted and rolling my eyes. Trademarks of overcorrelation include: (a) gross overuse of the word 'appropriate', (b) saying things like 'humbly expressed his desire to' instead of just 'asked' and (c) doing bizarrely formal things like referring to the former president as William Jefferson Clinton.

(4) Yes, he really did say that not one of the kids ever disobeyed their mother. I'm not sure how to take this, especially since I distinctly remember Elder Nelson describing their family scripture studies as not so much a howling success but sometimes "more howling than success." I wonder if it might have something to do with how rarely he was home when his family was young. This leads to a larger issue that has bothered me as I have read several bios of Church leaders: one gets the impression that they didn't spend much time with their young families because they were working. (At one point, the books notes that during his years as a surgeon, Nelson was out of town at conferences for about 35% of the time. He was also a stake president and then General President of the Sunday School during this time.) I have some theories here:

(a) It was a different time. There were different expectations for fathers.
(b) These men were exceptions: because their skills would later be needed to build up the kingdom, they needed to pursue their careers full throttle. (He was able to open doors in many countries because of his professional connections and skill.)
(c) They should have been home more. (I went to a fireside once where the speaker talked about deliberately modeling his career after Elder Oaks and then, years later, being stunned when Elder Oaks said that he should have spent more time with his family and less time at work.)

Overall, I was disappointed with this book. His calling, talents, career, and character make Elder Nelson a fascinating person, and he deserved better than this. That said, there are some strengths here: the description of the Church's expansion into the former Soviet Bloc countries and China, with Elder Nelson's help, is truly fascinating. Barely recommended.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the review Julie. I have never read a biography of a living Church leader, so I am curious as to how they are done. This gives me a good sense.

Greg

Blog Archive