tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post115319404108003853..comments2024-01-22T08:27:40.801-08:00Comments on project mayhem: must read mormon essays #1 - church historythe narratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10774503436545764912noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153769469931164842006-07-24T12:31:00.000-07:002006-07-24T12:31:00.000-07:00johnny: sorry for not responding to you sooner. i ...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.the narratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774503436545764912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153696332331374392006-07-23T16:12:00.000-07:002006-07-23T16:12:00.000-07:00anon: thanks for the comment (though i wish you ha...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': "<I>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.</I>" 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.<BR/><BR/>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 <I>through</I> them into the plates).the narratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774503436545764912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153693768914023312006-07-23T15:29:00.000-07:002006-07-23T15:29:00.000-07:00“When they are learned they think they are wise…” ...<I>“When they are learned they think they are wise…” </I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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: <BR/><BR/><I>this is accompanied with a threat of judgment to historians that do actual history.<BR/>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. . . .<BR/>. . . . 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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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……Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153518624563621452006-07-21T14:50:00.000-07:002006-07-21T14:50:00.000-07:00connor:i have the impressions that you didn't both...connor:<BR/><BR/>i have the impressions that you didn't bother reading the essay by quinn. am i correct?<BR/><BR/><I>>>...faithful lds history cannot be done without appeals to the spirit and revelation...<BR/><BR/>Do you believe that it can?></I><BR/><BR/>yes. i think bushman's recent biography is an excellent example that it can.<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>because there is no meat on the table.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Read Leonard Arrington's <I>Adventures of a Church Historian</I>. Your "this seems like Anti-Mormonism" defense really doesn't work.<BR/><BR/><I>This is not productive. It is not faith promoting.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean. The scriptures sometime define faith as the believe in things which are not seen <B>but are true</B>. Shouldn't the truth be made manifest? Shouldn't members have faith in a truthful version of their leaders, and not mythical ones?<BR/><BR/><I>Elder Packer himself states that he and his colleagues are just men. Men are fallible.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you not see the irony that this is the very thing that Packer has disciplined Mormon scholards for saying?<BR/><BR/><I>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...</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.the narratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774503436545764912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153290096954483272006-07-18T23:21:00.000-07:002006-07-18T23:21:00.000-07:00This is a good idea Loyd. I don't have time to res...This is a good idea Loyd. I don't have time to respond right now, but the post raises an important discussion.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I'm waiting for your review of Dan Vogel's bio of Joseph Smith. Is it worth reading? Any new insights gleaned?Joe Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13221086768924339576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153276763878313002006-07-18T19:39:00.000-07:002006-07-18T19:39:00.000-07:00Understood in the context of Elder Packer's talk, ...<I> 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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>he does promote a milk-before-meat philosophy,</I> <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/> 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. <BR/><BR/>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."Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01545960049342385798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153236126491690662006-07-18T08:22:00.000-07:002006-07-18T08:22:00.000-07:00I'm a little bit puzzled by this comment by Packer...I'm a little bit puzzled by this comment by Packer:<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Steve M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06261411264695719660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-1153200403821714882006-07-17T22:26:00.000-07:002006-07-17T22:26:00.000-07:00there exists a strict dichotomy between 'faithful'...<EM>there exists a strict dichotomy between 'faithful' history and scholarly history</EM><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><EM>...faithful lds history cannot be done without appeals to the spirit and revelation...</EM><BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><EM>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</EM><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com