Faith-Promoting History

[Jeff Lebowski]

Tex's comment in another thread prompted me to look up two classic articles on LDS history. One is the famous talk by BKP to a CES symposium:

http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/M...=7&ProdID=1145
(requires Adobe acrobat)

The other one is an article written by Quinn, largely in response to BKP's talk:

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoituks...ioitsija.shtml
(my previous link was broken so I googled this one - if anyone knows of a better-formatted version, let me know)

If you haven't read these articles, I highly recommend you check them out.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Tex's comment in another thread prompted me to look up two classic articles on LDS history. One is the famous talk by BKP to a CES symposium:

http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/M...=7&ProdID=1145
(requires Adobe acrobat)

The other one is an article written by Quinn, largely in response to BKP's talk:

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoituks...ioitsija.shtml
(my previous link was broken so I googled this one - if anyone knows of a better-formatted version, let me know)

If you haven't read these articles, I highly recommend you check them out.

I've read Packer's before and don't remember him advocating lying for the Lord, so just for kicks I opened up the PDF and searched for "lying" and "lie." No hits. Care to point out the offending passages?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've read Packer's before and don't remember him advocating lying for the Lord, so just for kicks I opened up the PDF and searched for "lying" and "lie." No hits. Care to point out the offending passages?

I don't really pay attention to anything Packer said before he was senile anyway. But I have enjoyed his more recent talks.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I don't really pay attention to anything Packer said before he was senile anyway. But I have enjoyed his more recent talks.

I understand the angle Packer was trying to make, but I don't believe he considered enough angles, or perhaps, they are simply too difficult to tackle for a large organization.

I am sympathetic to the Arrington approach, not fearing truth. But as my hypothetical of "would you disclose, if you discovered incontrovertible evidence that Christ did not exist, to the world", shows, it's not as easy a bridge to walk.

And not all truths are equal, IMHO. If a man is a great statesman, commits adultery in private and is reconciled with wife, should that fact, a truth be revealed? Of course, during Clinton administration, the Republicans were certain as to that answer. Lewinsky is not that simple an answer, but what I'm saying is balancing all the interests is easy, when you're doing it from our armchairs posting anonymously.

And my opinion probably tracks that of Arrington more so that Packer, but administratively I understand his concerns, but simply do not agree with the answers he formulated.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've read Packer's before and don't remember him advocating lying for the Lord, so just for kicks I opened up the PDF and searched for "lying" and "lie." No hits. Care to point out the offending passages?

If only things were that simple.

You should check out the Quinn article. He makes some excellent points.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

If only things were that simple.

Heh. So he didn't really say that. Nice head fake.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You should check out the Quinn article. He makes some excellent points.

I will when I have time.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I understand the angle Packer was trying to make, but I don't believe he considered enough angles, or perhaps, they are simply too difficult to tackle for a large organization.

I am sympathetic to the Arrington approach, not fearing truth. But as my hypothetical of "would you disclose, if you discovered incontrovertible evidence that Christ did not exist, to the world", shows, it's not as easy a bridge to walk.

And not all truths are equal, IMHO. If a man is a great statesman, commits adultery in private and is reconciled with wife, should that fact, a truth be revealed? Of course, during Clinton administration, the Republicans were certain as to that answer. Lewinsky is not that simple an answer, but what I'm saying is balancing all the interests is easy, when you're doing it from our armchairs posting anonymously.

And my opinion probably tracks that of Arrington more so that Packer, but administratively I understand his concerns, but simply do not agree with the answers he formulated.

The thing I find interesting was that Arrington never took it personal. Clearly the talk by Elder Packer indicates some pretty strong opinions disapproving of Arrington and judging "his delight" in pointing out the foibles of previous Church leaders and that this tendency in Arrington put him in spiritual jeapordy and would threaten his eternal salvation. Yet, Arrington respected the mantle of the ecclesiastical leaders and would even comment that if he carried the mantle he would likely be more sympathetic to their perspective. It was humorous that he wouldn't turn his personal archives over to the Church.

I personally find the entire issue fascinating. The wrestling within the LDS Church on the very purpose of history, faith promoting versus legitimate, is fascinating to me.

Like you I stand with the approach that we have nothing to fear. In my perspective the LDS Church will have no choice but to adopt that perspective more and more. Technology and the proliferation of knowledge will force it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh. So he didn't really say that. Nice head fake.

Come on, Tex. He is preaching against the evil of honest history. You go ahead and call that what you want.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

The thing I find interesting was that Arrington never took it personal. Clearly the talk by Elder Packer indicates some pretty strong opinions disapproving of Arrington and judging "his delight" in pointing out the foibles of previous Church leaders and that this tendency in Arrington put him in spiritual jeapordy and would threaten his eternal salvation. Yet, Arrington respected the mantle of the ecclesiastical leaders and would even comment that if he carried the mantle he would likely be more sympathetic to their perspective. It was humorous that he wouldn't turn his personal archives over to the Church.

I personally find the entire issue fascinating. The wrestling within the LDS Church on the very purpose of history, faith promoting versus legitimate, is fascinating to me.

Like you I stand with the approach that we have nothing to fear. In my perspective the LDS Church will have no choice but to adopt that perspective more and more. Technology and the proliferation of knowledge will force it.

Well said, goat. Yes, it is absolutely fascinating. Quinn's article is outstanding, and his logic has withstood the test of time. The proliferation of information via the internet that we have today casts an entirely new light on Quinn's approach. I think his article would be much less controversial today than it was in 1981 due to this fact.

As you may recall, the church did a survey recently asking what members want from the LDS history dept. The number one response was "more honest history". Vindication for Quinn. (and of course, Arrington).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on, Tex. He is preaching against the evil of honest history. You go ahead and call that what you want.

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.