Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
That's a mischaracterization just like so much else around here. If you want to start throwing around such accusations, let's start seeing the quotes, and let's dig in. Otherwise, it's just another CG spin.
|
Tex, it is obvious that Elder Packer believes that all published Church history from the Church supported Historians office should be uplifting and faith promoting. I stand with you that he is not advocating anybody lie, but it is obvious he is advocating, at a minimum, to strongly consider withholding information if that information could have negative impacts upon the faith of the members. Clearly that is not a call for honest history, that is a call for faith inspiring cheerleading. I believe, however, that Elder Packer's perspective from 1981 is probably not as prevalentand the perhaps even Elder Packer's personal view might be less strict. Let us not forget that this speech was at the tail end of the Leonard Arrington experiment and emotions over the subject from some of the 12, notably Elder's Packer and Benson, were very high. Secondly, I believe that those opposed to how Arrington carried out his duties as Church Historian would not have been as opposed if Arrington's works came from Utah State instead of the Church's owned history department. I believe they distinguish a difference in responsibilities between secular academics at universities and historians within the Church history department who are being supported in their endeavors by consecrated funds. These men viewed those employed by the Church historians department as an extension of the ecclesiastical wing whose only purpose is to bolster the faith of the followers. In their world that *could* only be done through faith inspiring history. Or they believe that the majority of the members felt the way that they did.
In conclusion if you read Arrington's "Experiences of a Church Historian" autobiography he indicates that the perspective articulated by Elder's Packer and Benson was not ubiquitously held, but the emotional level, not to mention the fact that Elder Benson was likely the next President, caused those who supported that the Church Historian's office produce history acceptable to academia to temper their opinions in the name of unity and recognition that they might be pissing into the wind.