Monday, July 17, 2006

must read mormon essays #1 - church history

this will be the first of what will hopefully be weekly discussions of what i feel are some of the 'must-read' mormon essays.

in light of the recent discussions on church history, i have decided to begin with two talks on doing mormon history. the first is elder boyd k. packer's "the mantle is far, far greater than the intellect" that he presented to byu and church educators in the 1981 ces symposium.

there seems to be a presupposition underlying packer's philosophy that there exists a strict dichotomy between 'faithful' history and scholarly history (that would be accepted by 'intellectually trained' secular academia). of non-mormon historians packer says

They do not know of the things of the Spirit. . . . These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons.
after claiming that faithful lds history cannot be done without appeals to the spirit and revelation, packer nexts argues that certain aspects of lds history should remain buried.
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.
Some things that are true are not very useful.
this is accompanied with a threat of judgment to historians that do actual history.
The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one's sins preached from the housetops. . . .
. . . . He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. . . . If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.
granted, he does promote a milk-before-meat philosophy, however it is clear from his actions and rhetoric that he does not think the meat should ever be offered. if my mother raised me in this way, i'd be twenty-seven and still nursing on her breasts (i know, not a happy thought).

packer continues his dichotomizing by equating his distinction between 'faithful' history and 'secular' history to either promoting god's work or "giving equal time to the adversary." he paints those who write and publish with "so-called honesty" are merely self-serving or actively trying to destroy the church. he seems to give little room for those who feel their honest history is nonetheless faith-promoting (as it has been for me).

he finishes his talk with this plea:

I want to say something to that historian and to others who may have placed higher value on intellect than upon the mantle.
The Brethren then and now are men, very ordinary men, who have come for the most part from very humble beginnings. We need your help! We desperately need it. We cannot research and organize the history of the Church. We do not have the time to do it. And we do not have the training that you possess. But we do know the Spirit and how essential a part of our history it is. Ours is the duty to organize the Church, to set it in order, to confer the keys of authority, to perform the ordinances, to watch the borders of the kingdom and carry burdens, heavy burdens, for others and for ourselves that you can know little about.
this was pretty much the reason why howard w. hunter turned down his calling to be the church historian and pushed to call an actual historian to run the church archives, as well as pushed to have the church historical archives opened for research - all of which were opposed by packer. i also find it humoring that he begins his plea with the claim that "The Brethren then and now are men, very ordinary men, who have come for the most part from very humble beginnings" - the very thing that he criticized historians for affirming.


the second essay is by 'the historian' alluded to by packer, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)" by d. michael quinn. this is quinn's response to packer which he was invited to deliver at meeting of the byu student history association. this piece is largely quinn's own story (mostly told in the third-person) of his own adventures in doing church history. while i was very skeptical of quinn's authenticity when i first read this years ago, after having read several of his books and papers, my admiration and appreciation for him and has work has grown immensely.

there are several specific responses that quinn offers in reply to packer. the first is of the obligation that historians have in offering and not ignoring available evidence (how often do apologists accuse anti-mormons of ignoring evidence?)
It does disservice to the church for LDS historians to render themselves subject to the criticism that they have ignored readily available and previously published materials. If such material is sensitive, controversial, unworthy, unsavory, or sensational, then it is a matter of the author's judgment of its importance whether the item should be quoted, paraphrased, or only referred to in a note. It is careless, if not dishonest, to write as if such evidence did not exist.
in response to (then) elder bensons admonition that historians do not discuss environmental influences on joseph smith and others, quinn replies
It is obvious that Elder Benson opposed the idea that Joseph Smith invented something he called revelation that was a product of his own mind and of his culture and environment. As both a believing Latter-day Saint and historian, I also oppose such conclusions. One can acknowledge the influence of environment and contemporary circumstance and still affirm the actuality of divine revelation. In Mormon doctrine, revelation comes because of specific questions that individuals or prophets ask God, and those questions usually arise in the minds of prophets because of conditions they observe or experience.
Without environmental influence or surrounding significant circumstances, there would be no revelations from God to the prophets. And the changing circumstances and environment of the world are the very reasons Latter-day Saints affirm that there must be living prophets to respond with the word of the Lord to the new circumstances. If we write Mormon history as though its developments occurred without reference to surrounding circumstances, we undermine the claims for the restoration of living prophets. This is one of many areas in Mormon history where an alleged defense is actually a disservice to the Saints.
quinn further disagrees that lds historians should do as benson and packer wish and do history as if the hand of the lord was involved in ever step. rather Mormon historians
would be false to their understanding of LDS doctrine, the sacred history of the scriptures, the realities of human conduct, and the documentary evidence of Mormonism if they sought to defend the proposition that LDS prophets are infallible in their decisions and statements. Moreover, it would be hardly less false to allow readers of Mormon history to draw the implicit conclusion that LDS prophets were infallible, because Mormon historians presented church history as though every decision and statement came as the result of direct revelation.
Mormon historians have both a religious and professional obligation not to conceal the ambivalence, debate, give-and-take, uncertainty, and simple pragmatism that often attend decisions of the prophet and First Presidency. The historian has an equal obligation not to conceal the limitations, errors, and negative consequences of some significant statements of the prophet and First Presidency. In like manner, Mormon historians would be equally false if they failed to report the inspiration, visions, revelations, and solemn testimonies that have also attended prophetic decisions and statements throughout Mormon history.
against the idea that leaders' frailities should never be portrayed in church history, quinn offers what i feel is his best arguement - that such an idea goes against the very notion of sacred history contained in lds scripture.
Sacred history (which is contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) is an absolute refutation of the kind of history Elders Benson and Packer seem to be advocating. Sacred history presents prophets and apostles as the most human of men who have been called by God to prophetic responsibility. Sacred history portrays spiritual dimensions and achievements of God's leaders as facts, but it also matter-of-factly demonstrates the weaknesses of God's leaders. Examples are scriptural accounts of Abraham's abandonment of his wife Hagar and son Ishmael, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, Moses' arrogance, Jonah's vacillation, Peter's impetuosity and cowardice, Peter and Paul's mutual criticism, Lehi's doubt, Alma the Elder's whoredoms, Alma the Younger's apostasy, and the progression of Corianton from adulterous missionary through repentance to one of the three presiding high priests of the church among the Nephites. Moreover, the Doctrine and Covenants contains frequent condemnations of Joseph Smith by the Lord. Sacred history affirms the reality of divine revelation and inspiration but also demonstrates that God's leaders often disagree and do not follow divine revelations consistently. An example is Peter's continued shunning of Gentiles despite his revelation at Joppa, for which Paul publicly condemned him.
According to the standards of history required by those who have criticized Mormon historians, writers of scriptural history are suspect at best and faith-destroying at worst. To use Elder Packer's words, "Instead of going up to where [God's leaders] were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps to justify his own weaknesses." In fact, the scriptures do exactly what Elder Packer condemns.
quinn ends with his appeal that historians. . .
. . . did not create problem areas of the Mormon past, but most of us cannot agree to conceal them, either. We are trying to respond to those problem areas of Mormon experience. Attacking the messenger does not alter the reality of the message.
Dedicated and believing Mormon historians seek to build the Kingdom of God and to strengthen the Saints by "speaking the truth in love," as Paul counseled (Eph. 4:15).



these are only selections from both essays, both of which raise very important questions concerning church history. in the former, packer has a calling to serve and protect the membership of the church. he realizes that certain aspects of mormonism's history can be very devastating to members of the church. in the latter, quinn sees the problems that such protection can create. the history is going to come out. either enemies of the church can offer it, or lds historians can give context and understanding to these truths.

anyways, i encourage anyone to read both essays and offer their thoughts on this discussion.

8 comments:

  1. there exists a strict dichotomy between 'faithful' history and scholarly history

    Understood in the context of Elder Packer's talk, he's evidently arguing that all of history is biased. Unearthing "unbiased, factual" history is hard, if not impossible to do. We learn from the journals, writings, and speeches of people who obviously were biased one way or another in their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Citing these things as factual history will result in that history being biased as well.

    Look at the news today. Any news organization that claims it reports unbiased news is ludicrous. We're all human. When we write something to present, our own thoughts and feelings on the matter naturally seep in, either in large or small doses. The same holds true with the writings that are preserved for future historians to analyze and hack to pieces.

    ...faithful lds history cannot be done without appeals to the spirit and revelation...

    Do you believe that it can? I think Elder Packer illustrates a very good point. Things of the spirit cannot be fully understood and secularly analyzed without understanding the spiritual nature (as explained in 1 Cor 2:13, which he cites).

    he does promote a milk-before-meat philosophy, however it is clear from his actions and rhetoric that he does not think the meat should ever be offered

    Who is to say that Elder Packer still feels this way? Maybe he has had a change of heart? Maybe you are misinterpreting his intentions? Maybe he does think meat should be offered, but he doesn't explain that explicitly in his talk?

    I'm not aware of Packer's intentions with restricting access to the church archives. I've not yet looked into that. But this entire analysis of his intentions reminds me all too well of tactics used by anti-mormons, who will nit-pick and find something they disagree with, and then drive a wedge through that little notch over and over again until the hole opens up more.

    This is not productive. It is not faith promoting. Elder Packer himself states that he and his colleagues are just men. Men are fallible. Who are we to judge, to analyze, and to nit-pick? What would it be like if talks and blog posts were dedicated to finding something we said 20 years ago, and analyzing it to death, using it as evidence to cite what we believe and think. Talk about airing out your dirty laundry...

    This is perhaps why many members of the church don't extensively research these type of things... It's because it is, in most cases, not a faith-promoting discussion. It is largely filled with analyses, conjecture, "questioning authority", and endless debate. Many would prefer to drink from the flowing milk of the gospel than to hack at a little piece of meat with the hyenas who are incessantly fighting over who wins.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't read suc things. As I mention in my blog, I read Elder Packer's talk yesterday and quite enjoyed his insight. My goal in reading it was to learn and understand, not critique and analyze to death.

    I'm also not saying you are right or wrong in your assumption. All I'm saying is that I agree with Elder Packer who himself cited his fallibility, as well as that of his colleagues. They are imperfect men. They make mistakes. So do we. So what? What goal are we trying to acheive by such analysis? What do we hope to discover or learn? How does such discussion bolster our faith? Perhaps it does yours, but as for me and my house (being single, that consists of me, myself, and I), I would rather go drink some milk and read the Book of Mormon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm a little bit puzzled by this comment by Packer:

    "He devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps to justify his own weaknesses."

    I personally think it's rather comforting to know that the prophets of God have been and are imperfect people, like myself, with weaknesses and flaws. Knowing that the brother of Jared sometimes forget to pray, like myself, yet still received one of the greatest visions in scripture actually builds my faith in God's mercy and grace. It's encouraging to know that the prophets are human, because we realize that we also do not have to be perfect in order to secure God's love and approval.

    In Mormon 9, Moroni exhorts us to be grateful that the prophets' weaknesses are manifest unto us, because we can learn from them and thereby improve ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Understood in the context of Elder Packer's talk, he's evidently arguing that all of history is biased. Unearthing "unbiased, factual" history is hard, if not impossible to do.

    I agree with you that a completely unbiased history is impossible. A historian must construct framework to make the historical facts meaningful, and that will involve the historians presuppositions. But I think that there is a difference between bias and honesty. A biased historian can still be honest. Otherwise honesty would be impossible altogether b/c we are all biased. And I think that honesty requires stating all the evidence possible and staying within accepted historical methodologies.

    he does promote a milk-before-meat philosophy,

    Regardless of whether or not Packer's actions meet this criterion, I think the "meat before milk" rhetoric is one of the most abused notions in our church. I am not saying it might not have a time and place, but if you read it in context Paul is talking to newly baptized members who are getting into squabbles b/c they think they see contradictions that do not exist. They weren't feed with milk b/c "their testimonies can't handle the meat" but because they are filled with jealosy and strife and of the "flesh". To suggest that life-long adult members, many who have served missions, been faithful their entire lives can't handle their own church's history is entirely different than what Paul is trying to say. Members should not be treated as babes in Christ, but as adults in Christ.

    People may think that this last point is pointless, but if you google "milk before meat" the first thing that comes up is exmormon.org. I do not think that other Christians quote that scripture a tenth as often as we do. And I think that such rhetoric actually hurts the church once the truth is known, as exemplified by exmormon.org.

    My final point is just to quote D&C 121. "But when we undertake to cover our sins...the Spirit of the Lord is grieved."

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a good idea Loyd. I don't have time to respond right now, but the post raises an important discussion.

    BTW, I'm waiting for your review of Dan Vogel's bio of Joseph Smith. Is it worth reading? Any new insights gleaned?

    ReplyDelete
  5. connor:

    i have the impressions that you didn't bother reading the essay by quinn. am i correct?

    >>...faithful lds history cannot be done without appeals to the spirit and revelation...

    Do you believe that it can?>


    yes. i think bushman's recent biography is an excellent example that it can.

    Who is to say that Elder Packer still feels this way? Maybe he has had a change of heart? Maybe you are misinterpreting his intentions? Maybe he does think meat should be offered, but he doesn't explain that explicitly in his talk?

    because there is no meat on the table.

    I'm not aware of Packer's intentions with restricting access to the church archives. I've not yet looked into that. But this entire analysis of his intentions reminds me all too well of tactics used by anti-mormons, who will nit-pick and find something they disagree with, and then drive a wedge through that little notch over and over again until the hole opens up more.

    Read Leonard Arrington's Adventures of a Church Historian. Your "this seems like Anti-Mormonism" defense really doesn't work.

    This is not productive. It is not faith promoting.

    I don't know what you mean. The scriptures sometime define faith as the believe in things which are not seen but are true. Shouldn't the truth be made manifest? Shouldn't members have faith in a truthful version of their leaders, and not mythical ones?

    Elder Packer himself states that he and his colleagues are just men. Men are fallible.

    Do you not see the irony that this is the very thing that Packer has disciplined Mormon scholards for saying?

    What would it be like if talks and blog posts were dedicated to finding something we said 20 years ago, and analyzing it to death, using it as evidence to cite what we believe and think. Talk about airing out your dirty laundry...

    After President Kimball read a draft of his biography (which he commissioned his son and grandson to write), he commented that there were things in it that he wished others didn't know about, his so-called dirty laundry. He then said that the book was exactly what he wanted, that if people wanted to know who he was, they needed to know about his faults and failings as well.

    This is perhaps why many members of the church don't extensively research these type of things... It's because it is, in most cases, not a faith-promoting discussion. It is largely filled with analyses, conjecture, "questioning authority", and endless debate.

    Who is to say it is not faith promoting? I know of many people who find these things very faith-promoting. I know of members who having lost their faith, regained it after discovering waht you call "analyses, conjecture, "questioning authority", and endless debate." It gave them a gospel and church they could believe in and hope for. Reading about the imperfections of leaders made them realize that they also had a chance, being imperfect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “When they are learned they think they are wise…”

    You make for some interesting, somewhat amusing reading. But your writing lacks the careful thoughtfulness of seasoned thinkers. You have made the fatal flaw of all anti-Mormon writings- you have used quotes outside of their context in order to either make or strengthen the point you wish to make. Anytime one does such a thing, their entire argument falls under suspicion and may be dismissed with the same contempt the writer is showing towards the reader. This is meant as a friendly suggestion for improvement. You make some good points, but must be careful not to give in to the temptation to make the point the “easy way” or make your point stronger with hollow logic. This is one of the things that Michael Quinn has been very careful to avoid, and it has set him apart from the majority of the attackers of Mormonism.

    Your specific example: You are citing Boyd Packer in condemning the “censoring” of historians, and suggest that he is declaring dire consequences for those that insist on stating everything they know:

    this is accompanied with a threat of judgment to historians that do actual history.
    The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one's sins preached from the housetops. . . .
    . . . . He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. . . . If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where be might have stood.


    But the quote is actually TWO quotes, separated by two full pages of discussion! The bit about “serving the wrong master” you would have the reader believe is applied to all historians who believe “everything must be told”. It is clear that that was NOT Packer’s intent! His stronger condemnation is applied specifically to those who “(delight) in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders” and thus is a “destroyer of faith”. Your combining the two belies this specific treatment by Packer, even if it lies within the same general context. The essay clearly distinguishes the two groups, while including one as a subset of the other.

    Finally, you might want to consider doing MUCH, MUCH more research into how Joseph translated the plates.(Another valued trait of Quinn's) You seem to think there was only one way……

    ReplyDelete
  7. anon: thanks for the comment (though i wish you had left some sort of name or handle). anyways, i disagree with your assessment of packer's talk (and my use of it). i provided the links to the entire talk to avoid the criticism that i was taking things out of context. though the two sections i quoted were far apart, they were both part packer's '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." both are reflective of packer's cynicism toward so-called intellectuals and academia. furthermore, the latter is a rather subjective judgement that packer has historically imposed on others who hardly see themselves as doing what packer accuses them of.

    furthermore, i have done quite a bit of reading concerning joseph smith's method's in translating the plates. all first had accounts (that describe the process) recall the method which i have given. the only real other option is that given by martin harris (with his curtain), but it hardly points to joseph smith reading the plates like a book or using the u&t like a pair of glasses (by looking through them into the plates).

    ReplyDelete
  8. johnny: sorry for not responding to you sooner. i think the milk before meat idea is abused in mormonism in several ways. first, as steve m. pointed out, there is very little meat discussed anymore. second, i think that the milk/meat dichtomoy has been drastically misunderstood. i think the use is appropriate in the context of exoteric/esoteric teachings and covenants along the lines of the baptism/endowment rituals. however, too many church members try to draw the milk/meat distinction along the lines of 'fundamental' beliefs and speculatory beliefs. this is further problematized when beliefs labeled as 'fundamental' are often merely more-canonized speculatory beliefs.

    ReplyDelete

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.