Faith-Promoting History
 

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?

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.

If only things were that simple.

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

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

I will when I have time.

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.

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

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).

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.

The Internet is, I think, contributing to the Church being more open than it has been in the last 25 years. As a researcher who has done archival work, I'm pleased.

Someday I'll do some work on the early Utah Church and the telegraph. It won't be controversial, but it will be interesting as all get out.

I'm also pleased that the dichotomy between leaders and scholars, which was intensified in the 80s, is weakening. Both respect for ecclesiastical leadership and respect for scholarly truth seeking are important.

Quinn's perspective has mostly stood the test of time, but making an overly-dramatic martyred spectacle of himself has not.

That would be interesting to read. As I recall, Brigham Young set up the Young Women's organization a few months before the Golden Spike. My impression was that the YWMIA was intended in part to help safeguard our fair maidens against the encroaching influences of the world. Although the Church historically has resisted, initially, such worldly encroachments, the Church eventually adapts (and is sometimes ahead of the curve) to them. The internet seems to be another example.

This Quinn quote is interesting:

With the Internet, will things ever go out of print?

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.

You're right on. And the telegraph was all intertwined with the railroad.

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.

As Goatnapper has pointed out, you have to read the Packer talk in its context of the Arrington experiment which Benson and Packer disliked.

The Duffy Dialogue article from this Spring edition summarizes the debate that occurred as a result of the Arrington Alexander era, and how Benson, Peterson and Packer together with Midgely endeavored to use anti-positivism to counter the efforts of Arrington "bracketing" and professionalism.

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.

The recurring theme I see in the Bushman biography of Joseph Smith is:

1. Joseph Smith didn't write anything about it, because he was a horrible journal keeper
2. Innuendo by members, usually disaffected, often decades after the fact
3. Little to no corroboration, particuarly from contemporaneous accounts

Which then puts Bushman into the awkward position of relating the information, but often without enough meaningful context or substantiation, which leaves the reader to fill in the blanks and usually they see what they want to see.

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.

This brings up an interesting thought. What would have happened if Bushman had published RSR in 1981?

Was he the official church historian or secretly gay?

If you are a gay church member, does the church demand to know?

All I am saying is that you don't know what Quinn's situation was in 1981, and neither do I.

Maybe he "chose" to be gay many years later, as you "pro-choosers" like to believe people do.

The hell that Michael Quinn lives in is unimaginable. Here is a man with a testimony who both physically and socially just does not fit in with the movement he knows to be of God. I am not trying to vindicate him as God is his judge, but I cannot think of a more difficult gethsemane.

His genuine efforts in history alienated him from the organization and his sexual demons allow the believers to hold him up as an example of devious academics evaluating the Kingdom of God through the context of their secular training.

All I am saying is that Bushman's profile is not remotely the same as Quinn's or Arrington's. How the church would have reacted to RSR in 1981 is unknown.

Church historian? No. Secretly gay? I have no idea. He certainly could be. So could you, for that matter.

Indy is gay?

Maybe not. But then again, he might change his mind.

Yes, I'm a fellow lesbian.

You're lumping me in with the "pro-choosers"? Link?

Should I be concerned about the close contact we had during the Crowton debates that raged? His posts followed mine who followed his forever. Is it contagious? I mean there might be a reason why I have to use in-vitro......

Actually, Bushman did publish Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonsim in 1984 and, of course, he was not disciplined. The book can't compare to RSR in scope so it covers less controversial issues but it is definitely a warts and all history of the New York period. I think this suggests that Bushman would have had no problem publishing RSR. Bushman seems to be able to walk the line of faithful and scholarly better than others.

However, it is fair to so that the book was affected by the fallout of 1981. The book was supposed to be published by the church. However, that became impossible post 81.

I would think this should be the proliferation of INFORMATION, not knowledge.

And I'm not discounting that there is ugly stuff out there. It's just that there is also diverse perspective to any story.

Quinn is a phenomenal historian. I think LDS members will have to come to grips with that fact, rather than screaming "but he is gay!" over and over when presented with something Quinn wrote.

I don't scream "but he's gay!" at all. Instead I calmly say, "He is an apostate."

i.e., attack the source.

How do you know he is an apostate?

I don't think he ever claimed to not believe in the authenticity of the LDS Church's religious claims.

Do you agree with Elder Packer's opinion that a church historian is responsible to not publish history that could shake the faith of members of the LDS Church?