Boyd Packer talks about the truth and historians...

[_Dad of a Mormon]

From Michael Quinn:

When I was admitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University, I had the same kind of interview that all prospective faculty members have, and that is that a General Authority of the LDS Church meets with the prospective faculty member. ... The person who interviewed me was apostle Boyd K. Packer. We were together about 45 minutes, and almost all of that was a lecture. He began by asking me what position I was going to be hired in or was being considered for, and I said it was as a professor in the history department. The very next words out of his mouth were -- and I'm not exaggerating; these were seared into my memory -- Elder Packer said, "I have a hard time with historians, because historians idolize the truth." I almost sunk into my chair. I mean, that statement just bowled me over.

Then he went on to say, quoting him as accurately as I can ...: "The truth is not uplifting. The truth destroys. And historians should tell only that part of the truth that is uplifting, and if it's religious history, that's faith-promoting." And he said, "Historians don't like doing that, and that's why I have a hard time with historians." And the conversation just went from there. He occasionally would give me the opportunity to respond to what he was saying, and I would talk about putting things in context, and that one could deal with a controversy or a sensitive area, or even a negative experience in the past, but put it into context. I said that it's a question of do you talk about this in a sentence, a paragraph, a page, or do you just have a footnote reference to it? And I said, "That's a decision that each individual historian will make, but," I said, "I cannot agree with the idea that I should conceal this evidence." And he just shook his head, and he said, "You're wrong," ... and he went back to what he had started with to begin with. ...

Source

I would hope that if an apologist were going to challenge this, it would be that Quinn is either lying or simply misunderstood, because if this accurately represents how Mormon leadership approaches history, well, the game is over for the apologist. There is no way to defend this at all if you have the least appreciation for critical thinking.

[_moksha]

Perhaps Elder Packer heard the expression, "the truth shall set you free" and wished to have something a little more binding.

[_Corpsegrinder]

I would hope that if an apologist were going to challenge this, it would be that Quinn is either lying or simply misunderstood, because if this accurately represents how Mormon leadership approaches history, well, the game is over for the apologist. There is no way to defend this at all if you have the least appreciation for critical thinking.

Boyd K Packer said much the same thing during a devotional at BYU in 1981…
http://byustudies.BYU.edu/PDFLibrary/21.3Packer.pdf

Here is FAIR’s disingenuous “apology” for Packer’s remarks…
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... e_quinn.80

In its apology, FAIR does indeed accuse Quinn of lying: “Again, Elder Packer points out that is concern is not with the facts or the documents, but the misrepresentation of them. It is difficult to argue that the Church has not repeatedly been the victim of such misrepresentation—as many of D. Michael Quinn's works demonstrate.” In other words, any secular presentation of Church history is, by definition, a “misrepresentation” of said history. This mindset is a good example of the dishonesty inherent in Mormonism in general and Mormon Apologetics in particular.

FAIR also includes this rather illuminating Packer quote: "President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that it would be a foolish general who would give access to all of his intelligence to his enemy. It is neither expected nor necessary for us to accommodate those who seek to retrieve references from our sources, distort them, and use them against us.”

Hence the Church's need to lie in order to conceal the more unsavory aspects of its history.

[_harmony]

That's because the leaders of God's true church have a hard time with the truth. The glaring light of truth would expose so many secrets.

Open the books!

[_stemelbow]

I would hope that if an apologist were going to challenge this, it would be that Quinn is either lying or simply misunderstood, because if this accurately represents how Mormon leadership approaches history, well, the game is over for the apologist. There is no way to defend this at all if you have the least appreciation for critical thinking.

And what is your take if an apologist responds with, "ehh...I think he's wrong, ultimately. While I'd wonder if the context in his mind is that its easy to misrepresent historical claims as truth, or fact when they may just be unverified claims, ultimately I think its quite useful to try and understand "truths" in history."

[_Corpsegrinder]

And what is your take if an apologist responds with, "ehh...I think he's wrong, ultimately. While I'd wonder if the context in his mind is that its easy to misrepresent historical claims as truth, or fact when they may just be unverified claims, ultimately I think its quite useful to try and understand "truths" in history."

Could you please be more vague?

[_stemelbow]

Could you please be more vague?

pep pep...I could try. I won't though. It is historical fact, for instance, in some people's minds that Joseph Smith didn't have his first vision thing. Well, some people argue since Joseph Smith didn't report about until 1832 to whenever and accompany that with very little information before '32, that must mean it really didn't happen. I don't know if that conclusion is true though. Some people claim truth because its convenient it seems.

[_Buffalo]

Could you please be more vague?

pep pep...I could try. I won't though. It is historical fact, for instance, in some people's minds that Joseph Smith didn't have his first vision thing. Well, some people argue since Joseph Smith didn't report about until 1832 to whenever and accompany that with very little information before '32, that must mean it really didn't happen. I don't know if that conclusion is true though. Some people claim truth because its convenient it seems.

Stem, you have to consider credibility. How credible is his story? That experience, if true, was the single most important event in the history of Mormonism. And yet, no mention until 1832, long after it was supposed to have happened? Not only that, but the story gets embellished with each retelling. That doesn't sound credible.

I know it's convenient for your faith claim to believe that story, but on the face of it it's not credible. You wouldn't believe such a tale if it came from L Ron Hubbard.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, you have to consider credibility. How credible is his story? That experience, if true, was the single most important event in the history of Mormonism. And yet, no mention until 1832, long after it was supposed to have happened? Not only that, but the story gets embellished with each retelling. That doesn't sound credible.

I know it's convenient for your faith claim to believe that story, but on the face of it it's not credible. You wouldn't believe such a tale if it came from L Ron Hubbard.

I'm not sure what the idea "does it sound credible" have to do with my comments, though. I realize its a fantastic sounding story that stretches the limits of human comprehension, and therefore ought to be regarded as far-fetched and untrue. But again, beyond the limits of my point.

[_Buffalo]

Stem, you have to consider credibility. How credible is his story? That experience, if true, was the single most important event in the history of Mormonism. And yet, no mention until 1832, long after it was supposed to have happened? Not only that, but the story gets embellished with each retelling. That doesn't sound credible.

I know it's convenient for your faith claim to believe that story, but on the face of it it's not credible. You wouldn't believe such a tale if it came from L Ron Hubbard.

I'm not sure what the idea "does it sound credible" have to do with my comments, though. I realize its a fantastic sounding story that stretches the limits of human comprehension, and therefore ought to be regarded as far-fetched and untrue. But again, beyond the limits of my point.

Not just the story itself, Stem, but the way it was told.

Didn't it also come out at a time when Joseph was in trouble with the membership?