[Goatnapper'96]

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.

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.