DiscussMormonism.com

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. ...

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.

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 wrote:Could you please be more vague?

stemelbow wrote:

Corpsegrinder wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

Buffalo wrote: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.