Faith-Promoting History

[Archaea]

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."



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.

What if there different approaches among apostles. The bureaucratic approach of the fundamentalist or the more realistic approach of Arrington and Church liberals? I don't really see it as an approach between apostates and apostles. I don't regard Quinn who is still believing and has been excommunicated for unknown reasons, as apostate.

You're casting a war, which doesn't exist.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

There's a difference between facts and interpretation - which your thoughts on "truth" were getting at. Facts are (generally) easy enough to establish. Nobody argues what year Lincoln was born or where he went to high school or what color his eyes were. Lots of people,though, argue about his intentions, plans, and effects.

IMO, Packer wants to suppress facts - a tough position to justify - because he claims that "Some things that are true are not very useful."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by 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.

There's a fine line between ordering facts according to perceived significance and manipulating facts for an agenda. To the extent Krakauer did the latter, shame on him, but that's not what I or Packer (IMO) advocate.

Originally Posted by Archaea

What if there different approaches among apostles. The bureaucratic approach of the fundamentalist or the more realistic approach of Arrington and Church liberals? I don't really see it as an approach between apostates and apostles. I don't regard Quinn who is still believing and has been excommunicated for unknown reasons, as apostate.

You're casting a war, which doesn't exist.

I am not the one casting a war, but these folks are no longer members for a reason.

Originally Posted by Solon

There's a difference between facts and interpretation - which your thoughts on "truth" were getting at. Facts are (generally) easy enough to establish. Nobody argues what year Lincoln was born or where he went to high school or what color his eyes were. Lots of people,though, argue about his intentions, plans, and effects.

IMO, Packer wants to suppress facts - a tough position to justify - because he claims that "Some things that are true are not very useful."

Again, a specious argument. No one debates the date the church was restored either. Instead it revolves around far more subjective views such as "an article maintaining that Joseph Smith treated Mormon women more equally than the church does today."

And "suppress" is too strong a word, but I guess it's better than those who say he advocated lying.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Again, a specious argument.

Congratulations on learning how to spell "specious." You know, dictionaries can tell you not just how to spell a word, but what it means, too.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Congratulations on learning how to spell "specious." You know, dictionaries can tell you not just how to spell a word, but what it means, too.

specious: apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specious

Eminently applicable.

[Solon]

It's not specious, at least in my opinion, but I'm glad we're in agreement.

Let me turn the question around.

They [professors] would [prefer] that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons.

Is there any other profession - legal profession, mind you - in which someone from LDS leadership could call a person's salvation into question based on that person's legitimate practice of that profession? There might be, but I don't know.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

It's not specious, at least in my opinion, but I'm glad we're in agreement.

Let me turn the question around.



Is there any other profession - legal profession, mind you - in which someone from LDS leadership could call a person's salvation into question based on that person's legitimate practice of that profession? There might be, but I don't know.

call girl

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

It's not specious, at least in my opinion, but I'm glad we're in agreement.

Let me turn the question around.



Is there any other profession - legal profession, mind you - in which someone from LDS leadership could call a person's salvation into question based on that person's legitimate practice of that profession? There might be, but I don't know.

That's not really a fair question, Solon. How many professions have the potential for producing such a conflict in the first place? Abortion clinic doctor? Beer company marketing executive? As a software developer, I can tell you I don't deal much in Mormon theology.

Perhaps the reason LDS historians are so strongly cautioned is because they enjoy a very unique relationship with the church that few others can.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

There's a fine line between ordering facts according to perceived significance and manipulating facts for an agenda. To the extent Krakauer did the latter, shame on him, but that's not what I or Packer (IMO) advocate.

Trying to strengthen the testimony of members through your so-called selective history is not an agenda?

Don't bother replying. I know what dance you will do.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

It's not specious, at least in my opinion, but I'm glad we're in agreement.

Let me turn the question around.



Is there any other profession - legal profession, mind you - in which someone from LDS leadership could call a person's salvation into question based on that person's legitimate practice of that profession? There might be, but I don't know.

Excellent point Solon. If you want to be a historian of Mormonism, and you are a member of the church and you have integrity, watch out.

Ask Juanita Brooks.