Faith-Promoting History

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

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?

Do you think the role of the official Church Historian is or should be the same as any other regular historian of the church?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Do you think the role of the official Church Historian is or should be the same as any other regular historian of the church?

I am a bit confused, do you mean the ward and stake historians that take pictures of bishoprics and have young women offer testimonials about Girls Camp?

If that is what you mean, then yes I do think that the official Church Historian should have a different role. I believe in an professional academic who would publish history that is acceptable in that realm. I think that brings the Church great benefit.

If that is not what you mean by the "other regular historians of the Church," please inform and I will answer. Do you mean the difference between the Arrington experiment versus an ecclesastical leader such as BH Roberts or Joseph Fielding Smith? If that is what you meant, my answer is the same as above.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I am a bit confused, do you mean the ward and stake historians that take pictures of bishoprics and have young women offer testimonials about Girls Camp?

If that is what you mean, then yes I do think that the official Church Historian should have a different role. I believe in an professional academic who would publish history that is acceptable in that realm. I think that brings the Church great benefit.

If that is not what you mean by the "other regular historians of the Church," please inform and I will answer. Do you mean the difference between the Arrington experiment versus an ecclesastical leader such as BH Roberts or Joseph Fielding Smith? If that is what you meant, my answer is the same as above.

If that's the role you want for the official Church Historian, then what need is there for the church to even appoint one in the first place? It's not like there aren't ample other "unofficial" historians already filling that role.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If that's the role you want for the official Church Historian, then what need is there for the church to even appoint one in the first place? It's not like there aren't ample other "unofficial" historians already filling that role.

God commanded the Church to. Obedience is better than sacrifice, GA Son.

The official church historian would have access to far more information that the unofficial historians - either apologist or critic. That is the most compelling reason, IMO. If the Church wishes to guard its archives more closely than a Laurel guards her canned peaches on prom night, methinks having a legitimate academic to shed some light on what is within is helpful.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

God commanded the Church to. Obedience is better than sacrifice, GA Son.

The official church historian would have access to far more information that the unofficial historians - either apologist or critic. That is the most compelling reason, IMO. If the Church wishes to guard its archives more closely than a Laurel guards her canned peaches on prom night, methinks having a legitimate academic to shed some light on what is within is helpful.

GA son?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

GA son?

Make the mullah's proud of you--oohoohooh oooh oooh!

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Make the mullah's proud of you--oohoohooh oooh oooh!

Sorry, I've lost my Cracker Jack Urim and Thummim decoder ring.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

i.e., attack the source.

Credibility matters.

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

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.

I'm pretty sure I read that he espoused some apostate beliefs. Perhaps he holds those beliefs and still believes the church is true, I don't know. Apostates of his stripe (ala Margaret Toscano) exist in a strange limbo where they live with a certain cognitive disharmony as it concerns spiritual matters.

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

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?

I think you and Solon made some good points. I don't have time to respond in detail at the moment, but I will.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

Yes, and I could calmly state "Tex is a douchebag." But what point would that serve?

Perhaps you should define the term "apostate". To my knowledge, Quinn still claims to be a full believer. Pretty remarkable if you think about what he has gone through.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes, and I could calmly state "Tex is a douchebag." But what point would that serve?

Perhaps you should define the term "apostate". To my knowledge, Quinn still claims to be a full believer. Pretty remarkable if you think about what he has gone through.

So what specifically did he get ex'ed for?