Faith-Promoting History

[Sleeping in EQ]

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.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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.

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.

[Archaea]

This Quinn quote is interesting:

The Catholic dogma of infallibility is not that the pope is incapable of human weaknesses, but that his statements and decisions are infallible in all matters of faith and morals. It was not until 1870 that Roman Catholicism officially adopted the infallibility doctrine, and the Mormon Church would have to dispense with some of its fundamental doctrines in order to adopt a position of prophetic infallibility. The LDS doctrine of free agency is central to the entire Mormon view of existence in time and eternity, and that doctrine is incompatible with the view that a Latter-day Saint is free to make mistakes in what he says and does until he becomes a prophet. If a prophet is incapable to personal opinion, human limitation, and error in his decisions and statements, then that prophet has no free agency as a prophet and personal responsibility. If an LDS prophet is incapable of making mistakes in his prophetic calling, then he is the only Latter-day Saint who is excused from "rendering an accounting of his stewardship unto God," as required in the firm doctrine of each individual's absolute responsibility for his own actions and for the callings given to tbe individual by God on earth.

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

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

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.

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

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

Here's the problem, Tex - at least my understanding of it.

Packer: One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.

John 8:31-32
If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

D&C 93.53
53 And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen.

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.

[Archaea]

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.

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.

[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.

[Indy Coug]

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

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.

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.