Obviously, on the one topic, we are going to end up continuing to talk past each other, and given that its not that significant to the OP, we should probably let it drop. Our perspectives on texts are far enough apart that we won't make a lot of headway without a substantial amount of groundwork.
Doctor Scratch writes
(If you responded to this, I missed it.)
I think that there are a couple of assumptions here Scratch. First, I will grant to you that the church discourages people from watching R rated movies. I suspect that if I look, I will also find a bunch of statements discouraging me from looking at pornography. I think that we can both agree that in the OP, the statement "The Church is permeated with a seemingly irrational fear of its members finding stuff out." probably was not intended to deal with the question of pornography (even if you think that it might be applicable).
Second, I provided a quote from another general authority which suggested quite reasonably that people ought to go outside of any proscribed list provided by the church of useful sources. That author went so far as to say: "Those who will not risk exposure to experiences that are not obviously related to some Church word or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends." There is something important and significant about learning to expand our horizons and judging between what is good and valuable and what is not.
So if I didn't respond to your link, it was probably because I didn't find it too terribly relevant to the OP.
This is worth re-hashing because it fits with the topic of the OP. And come on, Ben: it "wouldn't help...distribute it beyond the setting in which it was given"? What the? It was delivered to teachers! Even if the talk itself wasn't relayed, the educators--provided that they heeded the directions of this apostle (and how often to TR-carrying Mormons willfully go against what the Brethren say?)--would have passed the gist of it along to the people they taught. Your argument is absurd.
Out of curiosity, have you read it? His caution four seems to come about as close to the charges in the OP as anything else. But, the gist of the talk seems to be aimed at dealing with what the church does teach. So let me ask you the question I have been asking drifting. If the church's primary objective is to teach religion and theology, (which of course is part of what Packer's talk was saying), doesn't that to some extent mean that those classes are not an appropriate place to dig into secular history? It is a serious question. Which brings up the next comment:
I was listening to the "Mormon Stories" interview with Terryl Givens recently, and even he said that people have every right to feel "betrayed" over the fact that the Church has done such a poor job of educating the Saints, and of exposing/"innoculating" them against controversial and problematic history.
This is certainly true - but it brings up the discussion we have been having. Part of the challenge is that this seems like a wildly inappropriate topic for instruction in Sunday School. And thus Jensen's comments on trying to figure out an appropriate way to provide this information to members of the church. I might add that its a problem that has grown as the church has gone about formalizing the lessons, establishing universal schedules and the like, and de-emphasizing the importance of the Sunday School program itself.
No, I think it fits with the thrust of the OP. And what do you mean "elevate"? It was delivered by an apostle. I guess I can grant you that it wasn't sent out on FP letterhead to be read by the bishops of every ward. Is that what you meant? Regardless, I think there is ample, authoritative evidence to support the gist of the OP.
By elevate, I mean this - there are lots of talks given by apostles in non-conference settings. The vast majority of them are ignored, unknown, and undiscussed. This one gets a different treatment - not because it was written by an apostle, but because of the opportunity some saw to use its content. This is what I mean. I will continue to stand by that point. The most that it does for the OP is to talk about what teachers shouldn't discuss. It says nothing about reading material, or exposing ourselves to material in our own study. It isn't a suggestion (as with the R-rated movies) that we shouldn't look at something as members of the church. (If it is, I couldn't find it when I re-read it this morning). He didn't instruct the educators to tell people not to read histories. He did ask them not to teach histories that weren't from faithful works. He may well have been wrong in his assessment of the rewards versus risks of this approach, but it still leaves the fundamental problem of whether we can teach religion and theology and attempt to deal with history at the same time. I am teaching Gospel Doctrine in a couple hours today. Sacrament meeting will run over. I will end up with 30 minutes (or less) to teach a slice of the Book of Mormon. It is a slice I could easily spend far more time on. When I am faced with a class that largely won't even have read the short section of the Book of Mormon I am teaching, what should my priorities be for my Sunday School class?
I think that its easy for us to be critical of the church for not teaching everyone everything, but in the long run, its going to be a more complicated issue. I think that the church is making progress. Opening up the archives, publishing documents (for free) for everyone to get their hands on original sources. Requesting members to write more complete (if faithful) histories. RSR is one of those histories. It is something we might have seen come out of the church a hundred years ago (but not so likely perhaps forty or fifty years ago). The Turley book on the MMM is another.
If we are interested in a fuller disclosure, I think that we should work to praise the church and commend its efforts while at the same time we keep asking for more. Be just as critical of the equally flawed works (if they exist) put together by critics. Suggesting vocally that RSR is a problematic account in its very best scenario won't encourage the church to respond in such a way in the future. My personal experience is that the Church responds far better to criticism voiced from the perspective of the faithful than the same criticism leveled by those that are not believers. (Just my two cents at the end here).
Ben M