How Should We Write Religious History?

[Rivers]

Elder Packer in 1981 gave a talk at BYU called "The mantle is far greater than the intellect."

http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=5472

I've never heard of it until today from Mormon Expression. Elder Packer takes a pretty extreme approach on how LDS historans and teachers should deal with church history. Packers says, in his talk, that we shouldn't be writing or talking about anything in church history that isn't faith promoting. He warn against portraying anything in the church's history that could damage faith.

I think Packer had good intentions in giving this talk, but there is now a movement within the church to get everything out in the open.

I woner how Elder Packer currently feels about the Joseph Smith Papers project, the Mountain Meadows Massacre book, and Rough Stone Rolling.

Is it a good thing that the church is slowly moving away from Packer's approach and being more open about its history?

Is anyone else familiar with this talk by Packer and have any thoughts on it?

Edited August 26, 2011 by Rivers

[Questing Beast]

I recall the talk, and have read it again not that long ago. Covering truth with dissembling, no matter how well-intended, is going to backfire. Especially today with information about literally everything available to literally everyone in the Church. Even the most benighted, economically distressed areas of the world have increasing Internet access. It's only a matter of a few years, and everyone will have access whenever they want it. There is no possible way that the Church can follow Packer's advice from 1981.

I am currently reading Rough Stone Rolling. And I am enjoying it very much. Bushman's perspective is faith-promoting; while at the same time admitting and referencing the controversial material each step of the way. While I take a different view from many of his conclusions, I appreciate his baldfaced approach to understanding Joseph Smith in his cultural setting.

For members to have confidence in what their Church teachers say, those teachers have to acknowledge the existence of controversial evidence, like Bushman does....

[ldsfaqs]

1. Packer was specifically talking to those who "teach" history of the Church etc., namely those in the Church. The Church is about promoting faith, not causing a loss of it because of "human" weaknesses. Human weaknesses are not "The Church". The Church teaches on the Church, not the fallibility of men. I like his analogy, it's hard enough to verify the "gossip" about a living person, but to then try and verify gossip from history, is near impossible to verify. Thus, just because something is a fact, doesn't mean it's true or useful.

2. Packers talk was on "teaching with the spirit" all things, especially things which concern the Church.

Since the Church is concerned with the "things of the spirit", then clearly teaching things that are contrary to the spirit can most certainly destroy the spirits of those taught, as well as the spirit of the teaching. His was a warning that we must temper the intellectual pursuits with spiritual pursuits. He wasn't at all saying that facts should be omitted in ALL "mediums" simply because they aren't faith promoting facts.

3. He teaches the importance of pre-requisites. Any good teacher doesn't teach algebra before learning basic math, and no school would allow it. Yet, Mormons are supposed to throw everything at people, and they are supposed to be ready to understand it.

4. This is what Packer was actually teaching....

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of

how they may injure the Church or

destroy the faith of those not ready for

“advanced history

,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. 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 he might have stood.

Ultimately, everyone should read this talk, it was very inspired and true. He was teaching that it's a serious responsibility for those in the Church, to be WISE in their teaching of others, so that Faith is not destroyed. He wasn't saying "hide" information from people, he was teaching teachers and scholars to be wise in how they do things, to follow the spirit in their words, not simply facts alone.

Those who try to represent his words as something "perverted" or wrong, are making a serious mistake, and are themselves doing the very thing he warns about. If they are a member of the Church, then need to get their priorities strait. Not all truth is "useful", and not all facts are truth. There is a time and place for everything under heaven.

Man, that was a powerful talk......!

[ldsfaqs]

I recall the talk, and have read it again not that long ago. Covering truth with dissembling, no matter how well-intended, is going to backfire. Especially today with information about literally everything available to literally everyone in the Church. Even the most benighted, economically distressed areas of the world have increasing Internet access. It's only a matter of a few years, and everyone will have access whenever they want it. There is no possible way that the Church can follow Packer's advice from 1981.

So, not wanting someone to learn Algebra before they even know basic math is "dissembling"???

Further, just because someone has "easy access" to information, doesn't mean they should. I mean, we have more anti-mormons now because of the internet, proving really Packers entire point. People getting exposed to information completely out of it's context, etc., causes a loss of Faith and makes enemy's of the Church. This is a action of Satan, not truth-tellers. Anti-mormons thrive on this misinformation and perversion of information. I mean, I'm going to make sure my kids have read a basic history of the Church and know the Gospel in their hearts and minds before they get exposed to all that malarkey.

I am currently reading Rough Stone Rolling. And I am enjoying it very much. Bushman's perspective is faith-promoting; while at the same time admitting and referencing the controversial material each step of the way. While I take a different view from many of his conclusions, I appreciate his baldfaced approach to understanding Joseph Smith in his cultural setting.

I've read the book myself. But I have years under my belt, thus already well familiar with basically everything the book goes through. Nothing will harm my faith reading that book.

However, according to a couple of claims on this forum and elsewhere, some people have lost their faith after reading that book, further proving Packers point. These people clearly weren't at all to understand the information they were reading, as well, their testimony's were already likely at a point of doubt and loss of spirit.

For members to have confidence in what their Church teachers say, those teachers have to acknowledge the existence of controversial evidence, like Bushman does....

It's not like LDS are kept in a box..... We get milk before meat, in a progressive order. Ever wonder why we have a "Gospel Principles" class? It's so people can understand the milk, the basics, before they delve into Gospel Doctrine, which is studying various topics from the scriptures alone. We talk about the Priesthood ban, Polygamy, basically everything of import. Many like me know anti-mormonism, and we throw in anti-mormon claims also, showing the stupidity of the claims with the actual truth of the scriptures and otherwise.

So, this idea that we "hide" facts and the truth, is just from people who really never knew the Church (wasn't really paying attention, just going along), or don't know it at all.

Basically everything in Rough Stone Rolling has been addressed at some point, usually many times i.e. every year depending on the subject in my some 30 years as a member.... wow, I'm getting old. I didn't need to read Rough Stone Rolling in order to know it.

Edited August 27, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[altersteve]

I think everything in the Church's history can be "faith-promoting" if presented as such.

[ldsfaqs]

Indeed, and that was his primary point, that the spirit was to be used in what is taught, and that it is taught in wisdom and discernment, so as not to harm testimony.

I'm not going to teach my child that Joseph had Plural wives until I've taught him to understand Plural Marriage in the scriptures. There thus should be wisdom and discernment in "when" we teach some things.

[altersteve]

Indeed, and that was his primary point, that the spirit was to be used in what is taught, and that it is taught in wisdom and discernment, so as not to harm testimony.

I'm not going to teach my child that Joseph had Plural wives until I've taught him to understand Plural Marriage in the scriptures. There thus should be wisdom and discernment in "when" we teach some things.

I completely agree. And, as you implied, "how" and "why" we teach things to others are just as important as "when."

[TrespassersW]

In the text of the talk, Elder Packer says that he is addressing seminary and institute instructors. These are not historians and scholars. This isn't a warning to scholars not to publish negative things about church history. It is a reminder to seminary teachers to remain focused on the promotion of faith. That is, after all, the purpose of the seminary program. I don't see this as particularly surprising and certainly not controversial. Nor do I see any indication that the church is moving away from this. The seminary program is still, today, about promoting faith. Not about history and not about scholarship.

And I'm not convinced that the church is becoming more open about its history or that there is a particular movement to "get everything out in the open." Rather, I think the church is becoming more aware of its history. We are realizing that not everything happened the way we once imagined it did and are adjusting to this information. I see this as a good thing.

[Rivers]

In the text of the talk, Elder Packer says that he is addressing seminary and institute instructors. These are not historians and scholars. This isn't a warning to scholars not to publish negative things about church history. It is a reminder to seminary teachers to remain focused on the promotion of faith. That is, after all, the purpose of the seminary program. I don't see this as particularly surprising and certainly not controversial. Nor do I see any indication that the church is moving away from this. The seminary program is still, today, about promoting faith. Not about history and not about scholarship.

And I'm not convinced that the church is becoming more open about its history or that there is a particular movement to "get everything out in the open." Rather, I think the church is becoming more aware of its history. We are realizing that not everything happened the way we once imagined it did and are adjusting to this information. I see this as a good thing.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Rivers]

When hearing stories of people who left the church, I hear a very common theme. A lot of people are active in the church, go on missions, hold callings, etc. And then discover all the unflattering parts of church history while well into adulthood. Then they feel the church has been deceiving them their entire lives and they become very bitter.

I learned about all the unflattering stuff when I was only in high school so I didn't have nearly the same shock effect. None of it is a huge deal to me. So I personally feel that young people need better education about church history.

[TAO]

When hearing stories of people who left the church, I hear a very common theme. A lot of people are active in the church, go on missions, hold callings, etc. And then discover all the unflattering parts of church history while well into adulthood. Then they feel the church has been deceiving them their entire lives and they become very bitter.

I learned about all the unflattering stuff when I was only in high school so I didn't have nearly the same shock effect. None of it is a huge deal to me. So I personally feel that young people need better education about church history.

To a degree, perhaps. I do agree that it helps deal with it if you are introduced to the issues when you are young. But then, church becomes less of a spiritual thing, and more of a debate almost... and one thing I like about church is that all of these things are... put away, so to say. I like that sacrament is humble, innocent, and pure =).

So many variables to consider XD.

[Xander]

1. Packer was specifically talking to those who "teach" history of the Church etc., namely those in the Church. The Church is about promoting faith, not causing a loss of it because of "human" weaknesses.

Does that mean it is OK to be dishonest? The means justifying the end?

For example, how do you deal with John Taylor's denial of polygamy to a European audience, when in fact he was at time married to multiple women? Just an example, since it is fresh in my mind from the other thread.

I know the Church teaches honesty since it is part of the 13 articles of faith, but apparently there are exceptions to the rule. The overriding principle seems to be: that which benefits the Church the most it most important. All other principles, such as honesty, should take the backseat in matters where the credibility of the Church is endangered.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Xander

[Questing Beast]

...

I'm not going to teach my child that Joseph had Plural wives until I've taught him to understand Plural Marriage in the scriptures. There thus should be wisdom and discernment in "when" we teach some things.

And my point is that you nor any other parent have the luxury of choosing the place or time that our children get exposed to "the meat", as you prefer to call the controversial bits of our religion's history. The Internet will slap them up the side of the face when it happens.

You seem to believe that the availability of the information is not a positive thing. That this is hazardous to budding testimonies. But I say that to attempt to grow someone's testimony without allowing all the information to be there for them is to risk losing their confidence, maybe permanently. Those who have a problem with the contents in Rough Stone Rolling have been spoon-fed pap. You think that this is necessary. I do not. Comparing this to learning increasingly complex levels of math is fallacious because math is not in any way linked to controversial human behavior. Church history is as complicated as it is; simplifying it (dumbing it down) to immature minds or neophyte converts is rightly seen as screening the difficult bits out, so as to not risk damaging testimonies. But if testimonies are built on incomplete history, they are incomplete testimonies of inaccuracies. How is this a good thing?

Wanting the Church to be "simple and pure" when it is complex and as impure as its people are, is wishful thinking; making the Church out to be in character what it is not in fact. Discovery of the manifold differences between Church curriculum and the more full history is the damaging thing, not the existence of the controversies. If the CES insists on ignoring the dichotomy of its curriculum and the information available and well-documented on the Internet, it will reap the bad feelings that such a policy sows....

[TrespassersW]

When hearing stories of people who left the church, I hear a very common theme. A lot of people are active in the church, go on missions, hold callings, etc. And then discover all the unflattering parts of church history while well into adulthood. Then they feel the church has been deceiving them their entire lives and they become very bitter.

I see that same recurring theme as well. I have always been a bit confused that people would characterize it as the church has been "deceiving" them. The church isn't about history or scholarship. It leaves these matters to historians and scholars. In any given Sunday School class, the instructor likely knows little or nothing about the fine points of church history. So to feel that there was some kind of deliberate deception going on seems like a stretch to me.

I personally feel that young people need better education about church history.

I second that. But don't exclude us old people also.

[ldsfaqs]

And my point is that you nor any other parent have the luxury of choosing the place or time that our children get exposed to "the meat", as you prefer to call the controversial bits of our religion's history. The Internet will slap them up the side of the face when it happens.

By the time my kid is skilled and interested enough in using the internet, he will know the Gospel, know the scriptures, and know the controversial and the anti-mormon claims as to such issues. I will show them as we read the scriptures, how Christian anti-mormons pervert certain scripture and gospel subjects. I will show them how secular anti-mormons do the same but on other issues.

Further, there is a saying, raise up a child in the way he should be, and he will not depart from it. Obviously life is going to bring challenges, but I will do my best to prepare my sons for them. They won't have to become anti-mormon like I did, in order to know the truth. Of course, everyone has a challenge to their Faith, the question will be how prepared they are for it. I wasn't prepared when I came to know and dislike the Priesthood ban for African lineage, women, or Polygamy. But, my children will be prepared. I will teach them how to confront difficult seeming subjects, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, to discover that there is MORE to the matter. If they learn these lessons of a few issues, including politics, they will be able to apply the same methodology to any issue they might encounter on their own.

You seem to believe that the availability of the information is not a positive thing. That this is hazardous to budding testimonies. But I say that to attempt to grow someone's testimony without allowing all the information to be there for them is to risk losing their confidence, maybe permanently. Those who have a problem with the contents in Rough Stone Rolling have been spoon-fed pap. You think that this is necessary. I do not. Comparing this to learning increasingly complex levels of math is fallacious because math is not in any way linked to controversial human behavior. Church history is as complicated as it is; simplifying it (dumbing it down) to immature minds or neophyte converts is rightly seen as screening the difficult bits out, so as to not risk damaging testimonies. But if testimonies are built on incomplete history, they are incomplete testimonies of inaccuracies. How is this a good thing?

You are mischaracterizing what is actually occurring. You're taking the most negative assumptions you possibly can, and falsely applying them to the issue.

Are you going to call school teachers "liars" now, simply because they don't teach Graduate School history to Elementary students? Because that is what you are doing.

Further, you are ignoring the fact that many people join the Church being well familiar with scholarship, anti-mormon claims, various religions, etc.

Another point you're not considering. Anti-mormons, whether they were in the Church or not, misrepresent everything in the Church and it's people. They all say the same kinds of things, have the same kinds of flawed judgments, and more importantly, have the same ignorant judgments of various doctrines and teachings of the Church. It's as if those who were once mormon, never actually were mormon in the first place. They completely loose all understanding of even the most basic Gospel teachings. So, did you ever consider that maybe there is a GOOD reason why any group, not just the Church teaches the 'basics', and the things that are actually "The Gospel", and not every nuance in the world? People who leave it for whatever supposed scholarly reason don't even know the basics.

If you can't even get the basics down, you're not going to understand the more complex and other irrelevant "facts" of history.

Further, let's get real here..... Anti-mormons simply want us to teach mormons Anti-mormonism. You all don't want us to teach the "facts" and truth, you want us to teach YOUR versions of them. Sorry, won't ever do it.

I've said it already..... Nearly everything anti-mormons claim about us, I've learned at least once in my 30 years in the Church, and FROM THE CHURCH, and for most subjects multiple times. However, it was with the full story, not the anti-mormon version. Thus, really you guys are arguing about nothing. The Church doesn't hide anything..... It's simply teachers try to use wisdom and the spirit when teaching, and teach according to the level of the student. Everybody does this, no matter the institution in life.... It's not anything "sinister".

Elementary schools don't teach President Lincoln said some racists things.... We learn that either in High School or usually College. The world won't end because someone might learn that "fact" earlier than normal. But, we wouldn't want that occurring on everything. Are you really proposing that ALL STANDARDS of teaching in society be eliminated simply because of the Internet? Please, get some perspective.

Wanting the Church to be "simple and pure" when it is complex and as impure as its people are, is wishful thinking; making the Church out to be in character what it is not in fact. Discovery of the manifold differences between Church curriculum and the more full history is the damaging thing, not the existence of the controversies. If the CES insists on ignoring the dichotomy of its curriculum and the information available and well-documented on the Internet, it will reap the bad feelings that such a policy sows....

I don't know about you, but the CES I know are generally trained educators, who deal with students and young people. As such, they are going to encounter and thereby address many of the issues, you think the Church is hiding or keeping simple and pure. Further, the system while not perfect, is a good system. You teach and instill the basics, you encourage thought and teaching the principles of thought, and people are generally pretty good about working through any issue in life. I don't know why you think teaching anti-mormonism and all the facts in the world in relation to Church history to Elementary aged kids in the Church is going to somehow keep most from leaving the Church. Simply ridiculous. Everyone still has their own judgment, their own intellectual and comprehension skills, their own patience, their own humility, etc. Spending time teaching them all the facts in the world, thus less time in foundational principles will only make learned, but not wise. Thus complete IDIOTS, and certainly not the righteous of the earth and the Church.

The Church is about raising men to be among the wise and righteous of the earth, not to be "scholars", not to be learned and think they are wise. Anti-mormons are already "learned" and think they are wise. The world doesn't need more of them. The world needs righteous, good, and wise men, not people who can point out every single nuanced lie of anti-mormons. Everyone has their own interests in life. Thus, your great wish and plan for the Church is seriously flawed. Plus, plenty are interested in such things, thus those who want the information, can get it. The Church doesn't need to do the work that others should be doing. Plus, I don't know why you want to Church to "brainwash" us even more with "propaganda" as you all would say. We keep our scholarship independent primarily from the Church, so their can be objectivity. Yet, we are still accused of propaganda, and would be even more so legitimately accused of it more so, if the Church was more involved in telling us how to think on every nuance or historical issue related to the Church.

Maybe you don't like it, but the Church believes in teaching the Principles, and then allowing people to choose their paths in life.

Don't know why you would want us to propagandize our children even more????

Edited August 28, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Tribunal]

Those who try to represent his words as something "perverted" or wrong, are making a serious mistake, and are themselves doing the very thing he warns about. If they are a member of the Church, then need to get their priorities strait. Not all truth is "useful", and not all facts are truth. There is a time and place for everything under heaven.

Man, that was a powerful talk......!

What priorities? The spiritual, faith-promoting, aspect of our religion versus the historical context of the principle?

Why is "all truth not useful"? "And not all facts are truth." Really!? Why?

Edited August 28, 2011 by Tribunal

[Deborah]

How many young people are actually interested in an in depth history even in correct context? And even if they are taught how many will remember what they learned into adulthood. Have you ever seen man on the street interviews about our American history, and that is a requirement for every young person in high school. I think it's a lame excuse to say if only I had been taught when.... I in fact question whether some of these things were known earlier but just passed over or forgotten because at the time they weren't important.

[Tribunal]

How many young people are actually interested in an in depth history even in correct context? And even if they are taught how many will remember what they learned into adulthood. Have you ever seen man on the street interviews about our American history, and that is a requirement for every young person in high school. I think it's a lame excuse to say if only I had been taught when.... I in fact question whether some of these things were known earlier but just passed over or forgotten because at the time they weren't important.

Your response is exactly why I limited my post to what it currently is. I agree with you.

I guess I and my friends when we were young were the exception. Starting from high school I and my friends studied the context of Gospel principles. Funny but we would even study the context of historical events that took place in America.

[thesometimesaint]

While I don't believe that the Church should soft peddle any of its truths, that is different than hiding or God forbid lying about them.

Teach the truth, and we won't have to worry about the rest.

[TAO]

What priorities? The spiritual, faith-promoting, aspect of our religion versus the historical context of the principle?

Why is "all truth not useful"? "And not all facts are truth." Really!? Why?

Yeh, I think it really is... some truths are more important than others XD. That is why, I guess.

On the good side, most of my seminary teachers did a decently good job actually, I felt, in explaining the context behind things.

[ldsfaqs]

What priorities? The spiritual, faith-promoting, aspect of our religion versus the historical context of the principle?

Why is "all truth not useful"? "And not all facts are truth." Really!? Why?

Read the talk, and learn from the source....

[Calm]

Packers says, in his talk, that we shouldn't be writing or talking about anything in church history that isn't faith promoting. He warn against portraying anything in the church's history that could damage faith.

I think Packer had good intentions in giving this talk, but there is now a movement within the church to get everything out in the open.

I woner how Elder Packer currently feels about the Joseph Smith Papers project, the Mountain Meadows Massacre book, and Rough Stone Rolling.

Is it a good thing that the church is slowly moving away from Packer's approach and being more open about its history?

Is anyone else familiar with this talk by Packer and have any thoughts on it?

There is a difference between writing "religious history" and writing history about the Church. I think Brother Packer understands the difference and where both are appropriate methods to be employed and where they are not.

Straight history should be written according to the standards used by trained historians no matter what the subject matter is about. This is what should be taught in school. Religious history serves a different purpose, imo; it is a religion's efforts to place itself and its understanding of the relationship between God and Man within a context, to create a narrative that includes an ongoing dialogue between God and Man, a context that may or may not be "historical" as the term is understood today. This is what should be taught in church classes, whether on Sunday or Seminary or Institute (even 'embedded Institute' as I referred to religion classes at BYU). Thus the Bible is religious history even though it would fail as a history book if written today and certainly wasn't intended by its authors to be the ultimate authority of 'what happened' from what I've studied and read in religious texts that present a 'historical' story framework for their doctrine. Since LDS belong in a day where stories about real people are expected to framed around actual experiences, the context of our religious history primarily comes out of our "academic" history, but does not include all of that academic history and often 'mythological' elements can creep in an effort by some to give additional meaning to the story's framework.

It makes perfect sense then that a "religious history" is about being faith promoting (though this means different things for different people, having perfect--as modern man uses the term---prophets is not 'faith promoting' to me or apparently any biblical writer).

I think the Church supporting the work of academic style history through projects like The Joseph Smith Papers is a great fringe benefit of belonging to the LDS faith these days. We don't have to walk far to begin our education about the 'historical history' of the Church and its people. Some members just need to catch up with the church leadership imo.

Edited August 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[Franktalk]

A Church is not a library. It has a single focus of thought. Any thing done away from that focus is a distraction and limits the main goal of the Church. The Church is spiritual based and its teachings are spiritual based. Why would the Church waste its time by engaging in fruitless endeavors. Jesus said let the blind guide the blind they will both fall into a ditch. The Church stands on the edge of a cliff. Sometimes a herd of lemmings comes by. They look at the Church and mock it as they run off the cliff. The really devoted lemmings will mock all the way to the rocks below.

[Cobalt-70]

1. Packer was specifically talking to those who "teach" history of the Church etc., namely those in the Church. The Church is about promoting faith, not causing a loss of it because of "human" weaknesses. Human weaknesses are not "The Church". The Church teaches on the Church, not the fallibility of men. I like his analogy, it's hard enough to verify the "gossip" about a living person, but to then try and verify gossip from history, is near impossible to verify. Thus, just because something is a fact, doesn't mean it's true or useful.

...

3. He teaches the importance of pre-requisites. Any good teacher doesn't teach algebra before learning basic math, and no school would allow it. Yet, Mormons are supposed to throw everything at people, and they are supposed to be ready to understand it.

Packer's talk was directed not just to seminary teachers, but to "members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research." He was speaking to all Mormon researchers, which is borne out by other context in which he has counseled educators like D. Michael Quinn (when he was still a BYU professor) to quit being so forthcoming about Mormon history.

There is a difference between what you teach at church, and what you teach if you are a historian and a Mormon, like Richard Bushman. Packer was discussing the latter, not the former. Of course, what you say over the pulput should be faith promoting. But Packer is talking about what Mormon researchers publish in journals.

Ultimately, any effort of Mormon researchers to publish "Mormon History Lite," and to fail to honestly cover Mormon history by to the standards of academic research, is counterproductive. Mormon researchers who do that--and there are many of them at FARMS--will never be taken seriously in academic circles. Worse, they teach non-Mormon researchers not to trust us. While they may have comfortable careers at BYU, they will be doomed to spend their days as academic outcasts, without any engagement with the outside academic world. Nobody who is not already a Mormon will ever take them seriously. Contrast that to researchers like Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, and Joanna Brooks, whose honesty and forthrightness are doing far more for the cause of Mormonism than any of the defensive dissemblers at FARMS.

[Ares]

Packer's talk was directed not just to seminary teachers, but to "members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research." He was speaking to all Mormon researchers, which is borne out by other context in which he has counseled educators like D. Michael Quinn (when he was still a BYU professor) to quit being so forthcoming about Mormon history.

There is a difference between what you teach at church, and what you teach if you are a historian and a Mormon, like Richard Bushman. Packer was discussing the latter, not the former. Of course, what you say over the pulput should be faith promoting. But Packer is talking about what Mormon researchers publish in journals.

Ultimately, any effort of Mormon researchers to publish "Mormon History Lite," and to fail to honestly cover Mormon history by to the standards of academic research, is counterproductive. Mormon researchers who do that--and there are many of them at FARMS--will never be taken seriously in academic circles. Worse, they teach non-Mormon researchers not to trust us. While they may have comfortable careers at BYU, they will be doomed to spend their days as academic outcasts, without any engagement with the outside academic world. Nobody who is not already a Mormon will ever take them seriously. Contrast that to researchers like Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, and Joanna Brooks, whose honesty and forthrightness are doing far more for the cause of Mormonism than any of the defensive dissemblers at FARMS.

Your post would be better without the insults towards certain BYU researchers and the folks at FARMS. Please be respectful even in disagreement.