Faith-Promoting History

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

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.

Originally Posted by Solon

Here's the problem, Tex - at least my understanding of it.

While there might be ways to reconcile these positions, it's a tough call - LDS historians who investigate the LDS church's past often feel that they have to decide if they should follow their sources wherever they go, go after "truth" at all costs, or tone it down to save their own souls (or keep their findings to themselves).

While most avoid exclusively embracing one extreme or the other, most are uneasy with the conflict. Generally, non-historians don't understand the implications, since Packer hasn't called out their training and professions as harmful to their eternal salvation. Sure, they sympathize or criticize; but they don't understand.

The late, great (active LDS) historian Dean May once gave me a copy of a talk he gave in 2001. In it, he cautioned university students, "Do not impose secular goals upon the church." The church will never measure up in comparison to secularly trained counselors, literary critics, historians, etc. (that's not its purpose).

On the flip side, I wish the church wouldn't impose ecclesiastic goals upon members' secular endeavors. But Packer counsels: "A member of the Church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extensive academic studies, to judge the professions of man against the revealed word of the Lord."

It's a tough thing, to feel torn between secular achievement in one's chosen profession and eternal salvation. Perhaps it is for this reason that I meet far more LDS who are engaged in the highest academic levels of business, science, and law than in humanities. It's not worth the internal conflict.

At any rate, I've made my peace with this issue and thank Lebowski for posting the links.

I appreciate both these thoughts. A couple of my own:

Saying "we just want to seek the truth" is a bit specious. So who doesn't? I like truth. I'd wager Elder Packer does too. The challenge is, not all truth is of the same value. Discouraging historians (or any profession, really) from trumpeting truths that may contribute to the destruction of testimonies is not dishonest. It's recognizing that the spiritual truth of the First Vision is far more important than the historical truth of Joseph's polygamist relationships.

Or as Rex Lee once taught young, cocky BYU columnist Eric Snider, "Just because it's true doesn't mean you have to write about it."

Moreover, the word "truth" is an ambiguous and elusive thing anyway. Historians do not publish each and every artifact they come across. When they write books and articles, they sift the information, summarize it, abridge it, and sometimes perform interpolation. Context is usually necessary for full understanding. Presentation can make a huge difference in perception of truth. This is not a monolithic concept. Some philosophy courses spend an entire semester on the topic.

Lastly, "lie" is such a clumsy and inappropriate word (and my original objection in the thread that spawned this one). It's use in this context is not just ill-informed but may in of itself be dishonest. We ought to be more circumspect about how easily that word is tossed around.

One more thing. Self-styled church historians may do wonderful work. Good for them. It's unfortunate they lose their saving ordinances in the process, but that is their choice. Some of you highly value their work, and cheers to you. For my part, if I come to two doors where on the one side stand Packer and Oaks beckoning, and on the other, Quinn and Toscano, I would have no problem picking the former every time.

[MikeWaters]

What if one door was Packer and the other door was Oaks?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I love this insight into your thought process. You're "pretty sure" you read somewhere that he "espoused some apostate beliefs." On this premise you categorize him as an apostate of the same stripe as Margaret Toscano. On this premise you also apparently discount pretty much everything he's written (which you admit you haven't read) even prior to his "apostatizing."

On the other hand, you have to admire the simplicity of his thought process. The world is neatly divided between the good guys and the bad guys.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I appreciate both these thoughts. A couple of my own:

Saying "we just want to seek the truth" is a bit specious. So who doesn't? I like truth. I'd wager Elder Packer does too. The challenge is, not all truth is of the same value. Discouraging historians (or any profession, really) from trumpeting truths that may contribute to the destruction of testimonies is not dishonest. It's recognizing that the spiritual truth of the First Vision is far more important than the historical truth of Joseph's polygamist relationships.

Or as Rex Lee once taught young, cocky BYU columnist Eric Snider, "Just because it's true doesn't mean you have to write about it."

Moreover, the word "truth" is an ambiguous and elusive thing anyway. Historians do not publish each and every artifact they come across. When they write books and articles, they sift the information, summarize it, abridge it, and sometimes perform interpolation. Context is usually necessary for full understanding. Presentation can make a huge difference in perception of truth. This is not a monolithic concept. Some philosophy courses spend an entire semester on the topic.

Lastly, "lie" is such a clumsy and inappropriate word (and my original objection in the thread that spawned this one). It's use in this context is not just ill-informed but may in of itself be dishonest. We ought to be more circumspect about how easily that word is tossed around.

One more thing. Self-styled church historians may do wonderful work. Good for them. It's unfortunate they lose their saving ordinances in the process, but that is their choice. Some of you highly value their work, and cheers to you. For my part, if I come to two doors where on the one side stand Packer and Oaks beckoning, and on the other, Quinn and Toscano, I would have no problem picking the former every time.

I think that sort of belief is very short-sighted. Yes, some members may lose their testimony if they hear sordid details about the church's past. But keep in mind that if one person discovered the truth, someone else will too. So who should frame it first? The member, or the non-member? Given that it will come out anyways (and you know it will), why not take the "inoculation" approach?

History, I think, has pretty clearly shown that more harm than good is done when an entity attempts to "cover up" some blemish of its past. Inevitably, it leads to far greater harm than it would have if the organization had simply acknowledged the blemish, framed it as favorably as possible, and moved on.

The church is true. I believe that. And so I believe it can stand on its own merits and has nothing to fear from its blemishes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I appreciate both these thoughts. A couple of my own:

Saying "we just want to seek the truth" is a bit specious. So who doesn't? I like truth. I'd wager Elder Packer does too. The challenge is, not all truth is of the same value. Discouraging historians (or any profession, really) from trumpeting truths that may contribute to the destruction of testimonies is not dishonest. It's recognizing that the spiritual truth of the First Vision is far more important than the historical truth of Joseph's polygamist relationships.

Or as Rex Lee once taught young, cocky BYU columnist Eric Snider, "Just because it's true doesn't mean you have to write about it."

Moreover, the word "truth" is an ambiguous and elusive thing anyway. Historians do not publish each and every artifact they come across. When they write books and articles, they sift the information, summarize it, abridge it, and sometimes perform interpolation. Context is usually necessary for full understanding. Presentation can make a huge difference in perception of truth. This is not a monolithic concept. Some philosophy courses spend an entire semester on the topic.

Lastly, "lie" is such a clumsy and inappropriate word (and my original objection in the thread that spawned this one). It's use in this context is not just ill-informed but may in of itself be dishonest. We ought to be more circumspect about how easily that word is tossed around.

One more thing. Self-styled church historians may do wonderful work. Good for them. It's unfortunate they lose their saving ordinances in the process, but that is their choice. Some of you highly value their work, and cheers to you. For my part, if I come to two doors where on the one side stand Packer and Oaks beckoning, and on the other, Quinn and Toscano, I would have no problem picking the former every time.

This post is objectionable in that it casts the history of the Church in a binary fashion, either the Peterson-Packer way or the Toscano way.

Well there are middle grounds, such as the Arrington Alexander way. Both were faithful members, who were professional, yet truthful and not afraid of any truth.

What the Packer approach misses is that an ignoring of certain facts will give us an incomplete picture. If we ignore Joseph peering into a hat, we don't have a complete picture of revelation.

Tex casts the professional historian as one bent upon losing his saving ordinances whereas the bureaucratic method as the only way to salvation. I disagree with that and suspect many will be lulled away into a false security through the Peterson-Packer method to hell.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This post is objectionable in that it casts the history of the Church in a binary fashion, either the Peterson-Packer way or the Toscano way.

Well there are middle grounds, such as the Arrington Alexander way. Both were faithful members, who were professional, yet truthful and not afraid of any truth.

What the Packer approach misses is that an ignoring of certain facts will give us an incomplete picture. If we ignore Joseph peering into a hat, we don't have a complete picture of revelation.

Tex casts the professional historian as one bent upon losing his saving ordinances whereas the bureaucratic method as the only way to salvation. I disagree with that and suspect many will be lulled away into a false security through the Peterson-Packer method to hell.

Ignore him. This is a man with the melchezidek priesthood who would torture suspects. He lacks any ability to morally reason.

You can't have conversations about morality with someone that can't morally reason.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think that sort of belief is very short-sighted. Yes, some members may lose their testimony if they hear sordid details about the church's past. But keep in mind that if one person discovered the truth, someone else will too. So who should frame it first? The member, or the non-member? Given that it will come out anyways (and you know it will), why not take the "inoculation" approach?

History, I think, has pretty clearly shown that more harm than good is done when an entity attempts to "cover up" some blemish of its past. Inevitably, it leads to far greater harm than it would have if the organization had simply acknowledged the blemish, framed it as favorably as possible, and moved on.

The church is true. I believe that. And so I believe it can stand on its own merits and has nothing to fear from its blemishes.

Fine. You're welcome to your opinion. My message to those who think like you is, "Don't accuse those who think differently of dishonesty."

Originally Posted by Archaea

This post is objectionable in that it casts the history of the Church in a binary fashion, either the Peterson-Packer way or the Toscano way.

Well there are middle grounds, such as the Arrington Alexander way. Both were faithful members, who were professional, yet truthful and not afraid of any truth.

What the Packer approach misses is that an ignoring of certain facts will give us an incomplete picture. If we ignore Joseph peering into a hat, we don't have a complete picture of revelation.

Tex casts the professional historian as one bent upon losing his saving ordinances whereas the bureaucratic method as the only way to salvation. I disagree with that and suspect many will be lulled away into a false security through the Peterson-Packer method to hell.

I think you folks are getting too caught up in my last sentence. There are more approaches to Mormon history than two ... I just meant that when push comes to shove, I'm going to side with apostles over apostates. Some make a different choice.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Fine. You're welcome to your opinion. My message to those who think like you is, "Don't accuse those who think differently of dishonesty."

If we are going to take your approach, Tex, we wouldn't be able to accuse John Krakauer of dishonesty. Selective fact presenting to make a point.

So instead, I choose to accuse both of you of dishonesty.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If we are going to take your approach, Tex, we wouldn't be able to accuse John Krakauer of dishonesty. Selective fact presenting to make a point.

So instead, I choose to accuse both of you of dishonesty.

I never read Krakauer's book so I can't speak to what's honest or dishonest about it. But there isn't a historian or journalist in the world who doesn't order their reporting of the facts according to what they think is most significant.

If relating history were so clear cut, we wouldn't have a thousand biographies of Abraham Lincoln. We'd have one.

[MikeWaters]

I'm suggesting that Krakauer purposely discarded information that would have conflicted with his conclusion that Mormons are prone to religion-inspired violence, regarding the Laffertys.