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.