Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96
(Post 197152)
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
(Post 197163)
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. |
