Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96
It is interesting to me that Quinn has to so frequently defend his own spiritual convictions. What Elder Packer does is to ignore the history but seek to cast aspersions upon the motivation and intent of the historian. The historians are painted into a corner that neutralizes them and they have no choice but to negotiate that minefield with extreme caution in the words they use.
In fact it is my totally unqualified opinion that many members of the Church view the fact that Quinn was eventually excommunicated as vindication for Elder Packer's perspective. This is damaging as the issue should be the history - if the intent is biased then the product itself should reveal that bias. Further, I believe using excommunications as vindication creates a predisposed notion in the minds of some in their dealings with future LDS historians who publish acceptable academic works concerning LDS history.
|
In my mind, many of the historians who have been excommunicated would not be antithetical to the Church, if the Church took a more hands off. Have you read any of Carmen Hardy's works. His works are quite professional, but got him kicked out of BYU and although he may not be believing, he is not an enemy.
The "axe of excommunication" really doesn't seem to benefit the Church or the individual.