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."
I don't think that Packer left the apologist much wiggle room. The criteria he prefers is faith promotion, not truth. I think he fully recognizes that there is a lot of truth that isn't faith promoting and is in fact destructive to faith. The apologist would much rather assume that the truth is at least compatible with faith and that you really never have a need to hold the truth in. But I don't think Packer leaves that door open.
Dad of a Mormon wrote:I don't think that Packer left the apologist much wiggle room. The criteria he prefers is faith promotion, not truth. I think he fully recognizes that there is a lot of truth that isn't faith promoting and is in fact destructive to faith. The apologist would much rather assume that the truth is at least compatible with faith and that you really never have a need to hold the truth in. But I don't think Packer leaves that door open.
Well to be fair all we really have is some off-the-cuff rant by Packer as told by someone who some, at least, consider to be one who has an axe to grind. he could very well have been teasing the guy, and the guy took it all wrong. and there is room that the reporting itself though genuinely told misunderstood Packer. But, even if not, I maintain there is plenty of room for us lay folk to disagree with such off-the-cuff pronouncements made by an apostle. It also seems apparent he was fine enough with Quinn disagreeing with him. Its not like the guy was forced out of BYU and ex-communicated or something.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Dad of a Mormon wrote:I don't think that Packer left the apologist much wiggle room. The criteria he prefers is faith promotion, not truth. I think he fully recognizes that there is a lot of truth that isn't faith promoting and is in fact destructive to faith. The apologist would much rather assume that the truth is at least compatible with faith and that you really never have a need to hold the truth in. But I don't think Packer leaves that door open.
Well to be fair all we really have is some off-the-cuff rant by Packer as told by someone who some, at least, consider to be one who has an axe to grind. he could very well have been teasing the guy, and the guy took it all wrong. and there is room that the reporting itself though genuinely told misunderstood Packer. But, even if not, I maintain there is plenty of room for us lay folk to disagree with such off-the-cuff pronouncements made by an apostle. It also seems apparent he was fine enough with Quinn disagreeing with him.
No, not really. Quinn's characterization is born out by Packer's on-the-record talks. And let's not forget, Quinn is a staunch, faithful LDS apologist. He may have been excommunicated, but as far as I know he still has a strong testimony. He has no reason to lie. In fact, most of the trouble he's gotten into with the church has been for being too candid.
stemelbow wrote:Its not like the guy was forced out of BYU and ex-communicated or something.
Uh, that's exactly what happened, eventually.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:Not just the story itself, Stem, but the way it was told.
Either way, not really germane to my point.
Really?
stemelbow wrote: 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.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
stemelbow wrote:Its not like the guy was forced out of BYU and ex-communicated or something.
Uh, that's exactly what happened, eventually.
i gave stemmy the benefit of the doubt on this one...i figured he knew that and was being funny.
p.s. can i call you stemmy? i know we're not properly acquainted. it reminds me of lemmy.
-"I was gonna say something but I forgot what it was." -"Well, it must not have been very important or you wouldn't've forgotten it!" -"Oh, I remember. I'm radioactive."
This is just a modern day version of the scribe getting it wrong. I mean next you will be telling me that Oaks said we should follow our religious leaders even when think they are wrong!
I found the Packer portion of his interview fascinating. At the end the interviewer asked him what were the top five thing about early Mormon history that he though were incorrectly perceived. Number one on his list was the perception among the average LDS that the Joseph Smith 1st vision was unusual for that day.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
He gets off on seeing people get hurt when they don't see things the Mormon Way. Then turns a blind eye to it.
The First presidency and the 12 will put any Devout Lower Leader on the chopping block if they stand in the way of the 12's interests, I've seen this happen first hand; It was a former Bishop/acting Stake High Council Man. Screw the Regular Joe Mormon's integrity.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Boyd K. Packer is my favorite Apostle. I will miss him when he is gone.
All the things he says (and has said in the past) that are such potent ammunition for critics will soon be put into the "speaking as a man account" by apologists and the critics will have to look for a new "go to" Apostle for their ridiculous and embarrassing Mormon Apostle quotes.
Fortunately for critics, it appears that there are plenty of more than capable candidates coming along to take Elder Packer's place.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
