Elder Packer's Statements To Helen Whitney Regarding

[mms]

The following is an exchange between Helen Whitney and Elder Boyd K. Packer in the interview Ms. Whitney conducted for the PBS Documentary, The Mormons. After reading it, do you think it is fair to say that Elder Packer believes that "work of scholarship" dealing with Church history should have the aim of making people "happy" or "generat[ing] happiness"? (Bolding mine.)

HW: Is there a conflict between a faith-promoting work of scholarship and factual scholarship? Is there a conflict at all?

BKP: There can be. Some things that are true arenâ??t very useful. And there are those in the past who have looked at the leaders of the Church, for instance, and found out that theyâ??re human and want to tell everything. There are steps and missteps that donâ??t help anything. Some think that to be totally honest they have to tell everything. They donâ??t. If theyâ??ve got the mindset for that, then theyâ??re always grumbling â?? they have an appetite for it. Theyâ??re free to do that, but it isnâ??t really productive, it doesnâ??t really make anybody happy.

Someone you knew, say when you were in college, made a terrible mistake. You knew about it, and it was forgiven and lived beyond. Thereâ??s little purpose in going back and digging that out and speaking of it when their children might be present â?? a lot of things that are true historically arenâ??t very useful and donâ??t generate happiness.

It seems to me that he is suggesting that the aim of writing history in or regarding the Church should be to generate happiness. Agree? Disagree?

(As an aside, it seems there might be significant disagreement over what aspects of history actually generate or diminish happiness in the reader (e.g., happiness in the short term v. happiness in the long term, etc.)

[selek]

The following is an exchange between Helen Whitney and Elder Boyd K. Packer in the interview Ms. Whitney conducted for the PBS Documentary, The Mormons. After reading it, do you think it is fair to say that Elder Packer believes that "work of scholarship" dealing with Church history should have the aim of making people "happy" or "generat[ing] happiness"? (Bolding mine.)

It seems to me that he is suggesting that the aim of writing history in the Church should be to generate happiness. Agree? Disagree?

(As an aside, it seems there might be significant disagreement over what aspects of history actually generate or diminish happiness in the reader (e.g., happiness in the short term v. happiness in the long term, etc.)

I believe that Elder Packer, like Elder Oaks was talking about the necessity of adapting the lessons to the needs of the audience. I don't believe he is suggesting that history itself generates happiness (although for those of us who are obsessive compulsive it certainly has that possibility) as much as it can be an impediment to happiness.

There is much in history that while factually accurate is neither useful nor appropriate to every lesson or every student.

Getting bogged down in the minutia is a sure-fired way to cause eyes to glaze over, breathing to become steady and deep, and the appearance of the phantom thunk as some student's head hits the desk.

Simply put, too much detail (and contention) can be used to cloud and mask the purer principles of the Gospel which do create happiness.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think Elder Packer's mentioning of people with a certain "appetite" is interesting, especially given the subject of all the threads you have created.

I also don't know that I totally agree with Elder Packer's take on history as you interpret it; although I think for the 12 apostles, as special witnesses of Christ, they have a different calling than, say, Richard Bushman, the historian.

[mms]

I think Elder Packer's mentioning of people with a certain "appetite" is interesting, especially given the subject of all the threads you have created.

I also don't know that I totally agree with Elder Packer's take on history as you interpret it; although I think for the 12 apostles, as special witnesses of Christ, they have a different calling than, say, Richard Bushman, the historian.

Personal shot noted, yet again. And, yet again, I will resist a personal shot in return (although a review of your posts provides ample opportunity (if that itself is a personal shot, then I did not resist)).

[jwhitlock]

It seems to me that he is suggesting that the aim of writing history in or regarding the Church should be to generate happiness. Agree? Disagree?

Elder Packer is simply stating that there are things in history that would generate unhappiness now if known and that it is unnecessary many times to rehash those things. He makes valid points, and the example he uses clarifies his intent.

He makes no statement that the aim of the Church in writing history should be to generate happiness. Neither is it inferred in his quote.

[katherine the great]

It seems to me that he is suggesting that the aim of writing history in or regarding the Church should be to generate happiness. Agree? Disagree?

(As an aside, it seems there might be significant disagreement over what aspects of history actually generate or diminish happiness in the reader (e.g., happiness in the short term v. happiness in the long term, etc.)

Maybe it has something to do with the switch from the term "Plan of Salvation" to "Plan of Happiness."

[Nofear]

It's been posted before, but here is the full interview. The quote before the one mentioned in the original post is also interesting.

[jwhitlock]

Maybe it has something to do with the switch from the term "Plan of Salvation" to "Plan of Happiness."

When did that switch occur? Seems to me that the term "Plan of Happiness" has been around for a long time; I seem to remember reading things from the 1950's that contained that term. And I've also been aware of both terms being used interchangeably more recently.

[Daniel Peterson]

It should scarcely be surprising that the interests and priorities of a Church leader with pastoral responsibilities are somewhat different than those of an academic historian.

My interests and priorities as a local leader are not identical to the things that motivate me most as a researcher, writer, and commentator on things Mormon -- let alone on things Muslim.

Roses are red,

Violets are blue.

I'm schizophrenic,

And so am I.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe it has something to do with the switch from the term "Plan of Salvation" to "Plan of Happiness."

It seems familiar, jwhit, and katherine, because it has been around for a long time. That's actually a phrase from the Book of Alma:

"Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness." Alma 42:8

[LifeOnaPlate]

Personal shot noted, yet again. And, yet again, I will resist a personal shot in return (although a review of your posts provides ample opportunity (if that itself is a personal shot, then I did not resist)).

If outlining your selective reading of many people, (Elder Oaks, Pres. Packer, Dr. Peterson,) is a personal shot, then yes. I want to illustrate the point that you seem to be looking past the mark on this issue. And even quote sources who indicate such.

[katherine the great]

Roses are red,

Violets are blue.

I'm schizophrenic,

And so am I.

[Jaybear]

It should scarcely be surprising that the interests and priorities of a Church leader with pastoral responsibilities are somewhat different than those of an academic historian.

Perhaps you could tie that thought into the original question presented:

HW: Is there a conflict between a faith-promoting work of scholarship and factual scholarship? Is there a conflict at all?

Whitney was asking about "scholarly" works, not pastoral speeches.

How would you have answered the question?

[katherine the great]

When did that switch occur? Seems to me that the term "Plan of Happiness" has been around for a long time; I seem to remember reading things from the 1950's that contained that term. And I've also been aware of both terms being used interchangeably more recently.

When I joined the church in the 70's, I only heard "Plan of Salvation." We always taught "The Plan of Salvation" on my mission (mid 80's) I remember it through the 90's. Several years ago, I completely stopped hearing that terminology and heard "Plan of Happiness" instead, and I've heard it ever since. I was just kidding about linking it to Elder Packer's comments.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps you could tie that thought into the original question presented:

HW: Is there a conflict between a faith-promoting work of scholarship and factual scholarship? Is there a conflict at all?

My response would be, "Not necessarily, though their interests and intentions diverge."

Whitney was asking about "scholarly" works, not pastoral speeches.

So was I. I said not a word about "pastoral speeches."

How would you have answered the question?

I answered the question at some length in an article written with a colleague who specializes in ancient and medieval China, drawing on Islamic, Chinese, classical Greek, and Mormon historiography: David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson. â??Advocacy and Inquiry in the Writing of Latter-day Saint History.â? BYU Studies 31 (Spring 1991): 139-179.

[ERMD]

Disagree.

He is speaking about the Church as a whole, not to academicians specifically.

[Teancum]

The following is an exchange between Helen Whitney and Elder Boyd K. Packer in the interview Ms. Whitney conducted for the PBS Documentary, The Mormons. After reading it, do you think it is fair to say that Elder Packer believes that "work of scholarship" dealing with Church history should have the aim of making people "happy" or "generat[ing] happiness"? (Bolding mine.)

It seems to me that he is suggesting that the aim of writing history in or regarding the Church should be to generate happiness. Agree? Disagree?

(As an aside, it seems there might be significant disagreement over what aspects of history actually generate or diminish happiness in the reader (e.g., happiness in the short term v. happiness in the long term, etc.)

I understand his point. But the comparison to the college student as bad. We are talking about claimd to speak for God, brign truth to the earth, claims of angles bringing scripture, etc. The charecter of the person making such a claim is important to know about to determine if they can be trusted. We are not expecting perfection here. But a reasonable standard of behaviour. Thus some things that are probably left unsaid for the average person is best left that way. But the man claiming to be a prophet and telling us what God wants as well as what he has changed that he used to say differently about (I refer the to the Nancy Rigdon Letter) better have a good track record. His indescretions of youth are one thing. Repeated problems as an adult may cause one to ponder trusting other cliams of the supernatural.

[Cold Steel]

It seems to me that he is suggesting that the aim of writing history in or regarding the Church should be to generate happiness. Agree? Disagree?

You have to remember that the Qof12 have a somewhat different take on this.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the LDS church is true and that Elder Packard is one of the Lord's anointed. Wouldn't you understand that he would want to inspire the saints; to edify them? To teach them how to better their lives? Why would he want to go down paths that might cause the members to falter?

I believe that's where he's coming from. I don't believe he intends to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, but part of his sacred duty is to edify the saints and to teach them correct principles.

The only peeople who can't understand that are those who don't have a testimony and who want to continually challenge the legitimacy of the church.

[sethpayne]

The following is an exchange between Helen Whitney and Elder Boyd K. Packer in the interview Ms. Whitney conducted for the PBS Documentary, The Mormons. After reading it, do you think it is fair to say that Elder Packer believes that "work of scholarship" dealing with Church history should have the aim of making people "happy" or "generat[ing] happiness"? (Bolding mine.)

It seems to me that he is suggesting that the aim of writing history in or regarding the Church should be to generate happiness. Agree? Disagree?

(As an aside, it seems there might be significant disagreement over what aspects of history actually generate or diminish happiness in the reader (e.g., happiness in the short term v. happiness in the long term, etc.)

I am uncomfortable with the whole concept of "useful" vs "un-useful". There are times as an Institute teacher where issues such as Joseph's Money Digging have been used to build faith by illustrating how God may use one's own cultural context to prepare us for a greater work. Also, Joseph's struggle with Polygamy (was it right... was it not right.... and all the subsequent hub-bub) can show how even a prophet of God struggles with what God's messages really mean at times. Even prophets have doubts. In some contexts, these bits of history are extremely useful - and even personally faith promoting. Of course, in other circumstances, they would have just the opposite effect.

It seems to me that "difficult" bits of our history are only difficult if we feel that need to remain stoichly loyal (at the exclusion of all others) to the Apotheosis of Church leaders in Church narratives which all of us have been taught at one point or another.

[karl61]

I wish when I was nineteen I could have told my stake president - look, alot of things that are true historically aren't very useful and don't generate happiness. There is no reason for a church court.

the other thing that leaps out at me is his thoughts about bringing something up infront of someones children something bad they did in college.

my question: what was bad in the past? I've been here for around six months and there are people here that will never admitt anything bad happened in the church's past: there is a reason for polygamy, and reason it was changed, a reason for everthing that sometimes doesn't seemed reasoned......

[selek]

I wish when I was nineteen I could have told my stake president - look, alot of things that are true historically aren't very useful and don't generate happiness. There is no reason for a church court.

the other thing that leaps out at me is his thoughts about bringing something up infront of someones children something bad they did in college.

my question: what was bad in the past? I've been here for around six months and there are people here that will never admitt anything bad happened in the church's past: there is a reason for polygamy, and reason it was changed, a reason for everthing that sometimes doesn't seemed reasoned......

And there are those who cannot move past their own bitterness (no matter how justified or how needless) and will indict the Church and its members for not meeting absurdly high standard of perfection which no one can or should meet.

To paraphrase (again) something the eminent DCP told me, there are those who will (for their own reasons) choose to disbelieve no matter how many reasons are taken away.

Clearly, your issues are with the Bishop mentioned above, but failing to resolve that, you seek to find fault with and condemn the entire church for the failings of one man and whatever other shallow excuses you can find.

Clearly, the black and white rigidity of thought that personifies people such as a Tal Bachman is no where near as uncommon as I might once have thought.

[karl61]

And there are those who cannot move past their own bitterness (no matter how justified or how needless) and will indict the Church and its members for not meeting absurdly high standard of perfection which no one can or should meet.

To paraphrase (again) something the eminent DCP told me, there are those who will (for their own reasons) choose to disbelieve no matter how many reasons are taken away.

Clearly, your issues are with the Bishop mentioned above, but failing to resolve that, you seek to find fault with and condemn the entire church for the failings of one man and whatever other shallow excuses you can find.

Clearly, the black and white rigidity of thought that personifies people such as a Tal Bachman is no where near as uncommon as I might once have thought.

it was with the Stake President and luke warm members really should look inward to what they really believe and why they go to church. I think in Revelations the Lord says he will not accept lukewarm. Like I have said in my previous threads - by the time I reached thirty and stayed close to my LDS friends I saw those who were not worthy go to BYU and go on missions and this was three or four out of eight - small samples are less reliable but that is what I saw. But I was likely the most honest out of everyone. It showed me how important social acceptance and being part of a group can hinder your sense of right and wrong.

[LifeOnaPlate]

it was with the Stake President and luke warm members really should look inward to what they really believe and why they go to church. I think in Revelations the Lord says he will not accept lukewarm. Like I have said in my previous threads - by the time I reached thirty and stayed close to my LDS friends I saw those who were not worthy go to BYU and go on missions and this was three or four out of eight - small samples are less reliable but that is what I saw. But I was likely the most honest out of everyone. It showed me how important social acceptance and being part of a group can hinder your sense of right and wrong.

What gives you the right to deem someone unworthy, whether or not they truly are? How do you justify this beam vs. mote approach?

[karl61]

What gives you the right to deem someone unworthy, whether or not they truly are? How do you justify this beam vs. mote approach?

[/quote

when they tell you they met with the stake president and he said if this happens again they would need to hold a court; then he tells you after that there are somethings that happened and he doesn't want to discuss with the proper people but will do it later and then goes off for his fourth year a BYU.

A golf and fishing friend of mine that ran a gay porn site, fathered a child after his mission.

a friend of mine who said that AFTER he came home from his mission he needed to discuss somethings with a Bishop that happened BEFORE he went.

Another friend of mine in the MTC told me "I have no desire to be here" later I learned he and his girlfriend were doing "everything but doing it " right up to before his mission....meaning everything but intercourse that can get someone pregnant.

I really didn't want to give examples but you pushed. me.

[mms]

I have confirmed that my IP address has been banned without warning or explanation. I can get on every website on the net except this one and fairlds.org (I am using a different IP address, now).

Can anyone shed some light on this? This is why I have not been able to post in the last couple of hours.

I wonder if this post will disappear. If it does and you do not see further posts from me, it is not by my choice, but someone who has some fear of what I have to say, I suppose. Maybe it was a mistake. If so, please let me know.

mms