Boyd Packer's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"

[MikeWaters]

This talk was originally given to CES.

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mantle.htm
https://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFS...20Intellect%22

The following are the summary bullet points as stated by Packer.

FIRST CAUTION

There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.

SECOND CAUTION

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

THIRD CAUTION

In an effort to be objective impartial, and scholarly a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.

FOURTH CAUTION

The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking, or teaching.

I haven't had time to read the talk, so I won't respond to it. I guess I can say that in general, I do not support lowest common denominator approaches. Approaches that are tailored to preserve the very weakest. But that is my bias.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

But that is my bias.

Since when was telling the the truth considered a bias?



Boyd K. Packer has given some humdinger of talks concerning scholarship, history, authors, etc.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This talk was originally given to CES.

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mantle.htm
https://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFS...20Intellect%22

The following are the summary bullet points as stated by Packer.



I haven't had time to read the talk, so I won't respond to it. I guess I can say that in general, I do not support lowest common denominator approaches. Approaches that are tailored to preserve the very weakest. But that is my bias.

This was an article quoted extensively by the article Sleeping in EQ posted. I'm not so sure about all of it either, but there are some valid points.

I certainly advocate the telling of all things. I have this crazy belief that eventually, all truth will be circumscribed into one great whole-- don't know where that comes from, but I believe it anyway. For that reason, I cringe when less flattering truth gets overlooked. Nevertheless, I do recognize that most people, myself included, are not necessarily capable of distinguishing that which is merely true from that which is truly important. It would be great if the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth could be a standard of academia, but the fact of the matter is that we can never know the whole truth regarding anything, and thus we can never be sure we are learning "nothing but the truth."

It used to be that one was entitled to one's opinion, but had to accept the facts. Now, one is entitled to one's own facts, as well. The standard of truth has been replaced by the standard of truthiness.

The truthiness shall set you free.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Bottom line for me: Witholding facts and information about our history is not "faith-promoting".

[MikeWaters]

I suspect that there are a few Mormons who hope that Elder Monson lives to a ripe, very, very old age.

[nuclearunderpants]

Just today at work we were talking about the earth becoming a sea of glass and seer stones.

A coworker mentioned he saw the South Park that shows Joseph looking at his seer stone to translate the BofM. He thought it was so funny they did that. I asked him if he knew why they showed it---he didn't know.

He had no idea that Joseph dictated most of the BofM while staring at a rock in his hat.

[SeattleUte]

Boyd K. Packer = Savonarola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola