Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96
I am a bit confused, do you mean the ward and stake historians that take pictures of bishoprics and have young women offer testimonials about Girls Camp?
If that is what you mean, then yes I do think that the official Church Historian should have a different role. I believe in an professional academic who would publish history that is acceptable in that realm. I think that brings the Church great benefit.
If that is not what you mean by the "other regular historians of the Church," please inform and I will answer. Do you mean the difference between the Arrington experiment versus an ecclesastical leader such as BH Roberts or Joseph Fielding Smith? If that is what you meant, my answer is the same as above.
|
If that's the role you want for the official Church Historian, then what need is there for the church to even appoint one in the first place? It's not like there aren't ample other "unofficial" historians already filling that role.