Dissing Boyd K. Packer

[Bernard Gui]

On a thread that was closed for not supplying a topic for discussion.....

Quote

 

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/10/extra-behind-enemy-lines-great-mormon-history-coverup/

A Mormon Discussion Podcast that I hope we can all talk about.  Let me know what you think. I am not at home but will try and check in later.

 

I listened to the podcast. It takes apart Elder Packer's CES address where he defined what is a faithful/faith-promoting history of the Church.

He calls his blog "Radio Free Mormon broadcasting behind enemy lines." Who is his enemy? It appears his enemy is the Church and its leaders.

An hour-long monologue making a case that Boyd Packer was immoral, unethical, and a liar who worshipped a false God based on his CES talk about church history and Leonard Arrington. Also accuses the General Authorities of publishing books for the purpose of making a profit. He doesn't like Elder Packer who is portrayed as an evil man. Also dredges up the Gordon Hinckley's "I don't know" interview to question his integrity. Church leaders are part of a deceptive conspiracy to cover up the truth of church history.

Some here knew Leonard Arrington. I have enjoyed his writings. Is it fair to say he was demoted from his position as Church Historian to a professor at BYU? Is it fair to claim Elder Packer was an unethical liar?

Edited October 27, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

After listening to the podcast, I think Pres. Packer possibly had regrets over trying to keep things hidden since it made it so there was the need for the church essays. Which may have done as much harm to members' testimonies as the anti Mormon information did.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

CFR that President Packer "tried to keep things hidden."  Thanks in advance.  

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

CFR that President Packer "tried to keep things hidden."  Thanks in advance.  

From the Mormon Discussion's podcast show notes....

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect_eng.pdf

[Kenngo1969]

Well, as long as we're considering CFRs met by simply posting links (that doesn't cut it with me, but I'm not gonna press the issue with you), do you know of any reason why someone shouldn't accord great (indeed, nearly conclusive: often, one's perspective depends entirely on where one stands) weight to this treatment of "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect"?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Boyd_K._Packer's_talk:_"The_Mantle_is_Far,_Far_Greater_Than_the_Intellect"

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to the podcast, I think Pres. Packer possibly had regrets over trying to keep things hidden since it made it so there was the need for the church essays. Which may have done as much harm to members' testimonies as the anti Mormon information did.

I get really tired of hearing this. Nobdoy was “hiding” the history. But what church leaders like Elder Packer were doing is using the history as a teaching tool. They were telling a story. And when you tell a story, you emphasize some aspects, deemphasize others, and some aspects you leave out altogether.

This is different than hiding.

 

When Moses was telling the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, do you think he told the straight factual history? Of course not. He wanted to tell a story that would inculcate, or teach, virtue. He was also creating an origin story, a national myth — in other words he was doing something other than teaching straight history. So he re-ordered things. He tidied things up. He had to for the story to be effective. Now when the day comes that the straight history of Joseph and his brothers is finally available to us, will malcontents and unbelievers say, “Moses hid the true history of Joseph and his brothers from us!”

 

Now for anyone who was interested in the straight, or factual, history of the church, it was always available. You could get B. H. Roberts history of the church at any Deseret Book, and all of the other “factual” church histories at any library, especially the BYU library and the church’s own library in Salt Lake. So forgive me if I find it funny that the people who were too lazy to seek out these books and instead relied on the church to spoon feed them, now blame the church for “hiding” the truth from them.

Edited October 27, 2016 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

Now, having said that, I will also say that I do have sympathy for members, members not given to reading — I have sympathy for members who, with the advent of google, felt blindsided by things they'd ever heard before. But I also don't think it's fair to blame church leaders for this, or to accuse them of "hiding" things. Rather church leaders had a pretty good idea what the average member was capable of handling, and that is what they gave them. For those who were capable of more, the seekers — well, all they had to do was go to a library.

Edited October 27, 2016 by bdouglas

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

Now for anyone who was interested in the straight, or factual, history of the church, it was always available. You could get B. H. Roberts history of the church at any Deseret Book, and all of the other “factual” church histories at any library, especially the BYU library and the church’s own library in Salt Lake.

I'm not sure what your definition of "available" is, but to this day BYU restricts access to Fawn Brodie's and Dan Vogel's biographies of Joseph Smith. You can't find them on the shelves or even in the non-circulating reference section. The only copies are squirreled away in Special Collections. To see them, you need to fill out a Reading Privilege Request form and provide photo identification. Approval is "limited to those who show scholarly intent." Assuming you clear all of these hurdles, you are only allowed to read the books in the reading room (after your phone and other personal belongings have been securely stowed in a locker). It's clear to me that BYU doesn't want to make these books readily available to students—otherwise they would just put them on the shelves and let people sign them out.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Nevo

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, as long as we're considering CFRs met by simply posting links (that doesn't cut it with me, but I'm not gonna press the issue with you), do you know of any reason why someone shouldn't accord great (indeed, nearly conclusive: often, one's perspective depends entirely on where one stands) weight to this treatment of "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect"?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Boyd_K._Packer's_talk:_"The_Mantle_is_Far,_Far_Greater_Than_the_Intellect"

Thanks for posting this. The FAIR article and the blog in the OP tell opposite sides of the story. I recommend that anyone who listens to the blog also read the article. I'm curious if Radio Free Mormon did.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm not sure what your definition of "available" is, but to this day BYU restricts access to Fawn Brodie's and Dan Vogel's biographies of Joseph Smith. You can't find them on the shelves or even in the non-circulating reference section. The only copies are squirreled away in Special Collections. To see them, you need to fill out a Reading Privilege Request form and provide photo identification. Approval is "limited to those who show scholarly intent." Assuming you clear all of these hurdles, you are only allowed to read the books in the reading room (after your phone and other personal belongings have been securely stowed in a locker). It's clear to me that BYU doesn't want to make these books readily available to students—otherwise they would just put them on the shelves and let people sign them out.

This is odd. I found plenty of anti-Mormon books in the BYU library stacks including one with the temple endowment text.

[Kevin Christensen]

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm not sure what your definition of "available" is, but to this day BYU restricts access to Fawn Brodie's and Dan Vogel's biographies of Joseph Smith. You can't find them on the shelves or even in the non-circulating reference section. The only copies are squirreled away in Special Collections. To see them, you need to fill out a Reading Privilege Request form and provide photo identification. Approval is "limited to those who show scholarly intent." Assuming you clear all of these hurdles, you are only allowed to read the books in the reading room (after your phone and other personal belongings have been securely stowed in a locker). It's clear to me that BYU doesn't want to make these books readily available to students—otherwise they would just put them on the shelves and let people sign them out.

I remember seeing No Man Knows My History in the BYU Bookstore on several occasions.  And all sorts of things on the library shelves when I used to go down to browse and xerox things.such as back issues of Sunstone and Dialogue and BYU Studies in the days before the internet.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[James Tunney]

11 hours ago, bdouglas said:

I get really tired of hearing this. Nobdoy was “hiding” the history. But what church leaders like Elder Packer were doing is using the history as a teaching tool. They were telling a story. And when you tell a story, you emphasize some aspects, deemphasize others, and some aspects you leave out altogether.

This is different than hiding.

 

When Moses was telling the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, do you think he told the straight factual history? Of course not. He wanted to tell a story that would inculcate, or teach, virtue. He was also creating an origin story, a national myth — in other words he was doing something other than teaching straight history. So he re-ordered things. He tidied things up. He had to for the story to be effective. Now when the day comes that the straight history of Joseph and his brothers is finally available to us, will malcontents and unbelievers say, “Moses hid the true history of Joseph and his brothers from us!”

 

Now for anyone who was interested in the straight, or factual, history of the church, it was always available. You could get B. H. Roberts history of the church at any Deseret Book, and all of the other “factual” church histories at any library, especially the BYU library and the church’s own library in Salt Lake. So forgive me if I find it funny that the people who were too lazy to seek out these books and instead relied on the church to spoon feed them, now blame the church for “hiding” the truth from them.

Why did it take so long to get the counsel of the 50 minutes? What was edited out, if anything? Why won't they release the William Clayton journals? This seems like hiding the history to me. Sure there is more openess today but there is still a long ways to go.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

To see them, you need to fill out a Reading Privilege Request form and provide photo identification.

Is that still how it works at BYU?! I would have thought by now that would have changed for things like biographies about Joseph Smith. I found a pdf of the Reading Privilege Request form.  Apparently applicants have to continually re-declare their research interests.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Duncan]

37 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Why did it take so long to get the counsel of the 50 minutes? What was edited out, if anything? Why won't they release the William Clayton journals? This seems like hiding the history to me. Sure there is more openess today but there is still a long ways to go.

The fact that we know about them and have done so for so long now tells me it ain't hidden, it's the minutes of the Council of 50

[Tacenda]

It's not hidden to the Mormon scholars etc. But to the average Mormon, maybe. Since it wasn't taught in Seminary or Relief Society and Priesthood, or Gospel Doctrine/Gospel Essentials. 

Now maybe some things will get put into the curriculum, such as Joseph's Smith's polygamy now being taught in Seminary. But still not given to the adults, I guess they are past inoculation. Oh, forgot, we have the church essays. But they weren't well publicized until recently in some talks etc. (but I do remember something in Church News once).

I guess I need the members including my family members to know of the issues so that I can break free of feeling isolated for knowing more than they do.

That's probably the gist of it. For years I felt like an anomaly for knowing things about the church's history when others didn't.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm not sure what your definition of "available" is, but to this day BYU restricts access to Fawn Brodie's and Dan Vogel's biographies of Joseph Smith. You can't find them on the shelves or even in the non-circulating reference section. The only copies are squirreled away in Special Collections. To see them, you need to fill out a Reading Privilege Request form and provide photo identification. Approval is "limited to those who show scholarly intent." Assuming you clear all of these hurdles, you are only allowed to read the books in the reading room (after your phone and other personal belongings have been securely stowed in a locker). It's clear to me that BYU doesn't want to make these books readily available to students—otherwise they would just put them on the shelves and let people sign them out.

Wow...I am surprised but not...I mean you need photo ID to read a book? Okaaaaaay

[ksfisher]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's not hidden to the Mormon scholars etc. But to the average Mormon, maybe. Since it wasn't taught in Seminary or Relief Society and Priesthood, or Gospel Doctrine/Gospel Essentials. 

Now maybe some things will get put into the curriculum, such as Joseph's Smith's polygamy now being taught in Seminary. But still not given to the adults, I guess they are past inoculation. Oh, forgot, we have the church essays. But they weren't well publicized until recently in some talks etc. (but I do remember something in Church News once).

 

You seem to be imagining Sunday classes more like Church History 101 than as classes where members are taught to have faith in Jesus Christ and live the gospel.  It would seem to me that Joseph Smith's polygamy is something that fits President Packers definition of something that is true but not useful.  I'm not really sure how it impacts my life today.  Not a bit as far as I can tell.

I'm also surprised when adult members of the church say they know nothing about the church and polygamy.  These are things I've known about for as long as I remember. 

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's not hidden to the Mormon scholars etc. But to the average Mormon, maybe. Since it wasn't taught in Seminary or Relief Society and Priesthood, or Gospel Doctrine/Gospel Essentials. 

Now maybe some things will get put into the curriculum, such as Joseph's Smith's polygamy now being taught in Seminary. But still not given to the adults, I guess they are past inoculation. Oh, forgot, we have the church essays. But they weren't well publicized until recently in some talks etc. (but I do remember something in Church News once).

I guess I need the members including my family members to know of the issues so that I can break free of feeling isolated for knowing more than they do.

That's probably the gist of it. For years I felt like an anomaly for knowing things about the church's history when others didn't.

Be happy that you know some things now.  It gives you a free agency that others may not have." Ignorance is the mother of devotion"..a quote by a good friend of mine.  You can't define hidden because it depends on the level of knowledge of history. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

On a thread that was closed for not supplying a topic for discussion.....

I listened to the podcast. It takes apart Elder Packer's CES address where he defined what is a faithful/faith-promoting history of the Church.

He calls his blog "Radio Free Mormon broadcasting behind enemy lines." Who is his enemy? It appears his enemy is the Church and its leaders.

An hour-long monologue making a case that Boyd Packer was immoral, unethical, and a liar who worshipped a false God based on his CES talk about church history and Leonard Arrington.

Those words immoral, unethical and a liar are yours in this description.  I'm of the opinion that our leaders make mistakes.  And if there ever was a mistake it was this talk to CES instructors, if you ask me.

As worshipping a false God.  That's a bit misleading. He's asking does God really want these teachers to not tell the truth?  What God would do that?  is basically how he frames it. 

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Also accuses the General Authorities of publishing books for the purpose of making a profit.

Again this is a bit misleading.  In Packer's talk he really questions historians who want to tell the truth by saying they want to make a profit or because of their egos.  This podcaster, who I think is Corbin V, turns it around if that's what Packer wants to say of historians.  Because Church leaders too have published works.  But why question a historian for publishing works?  It was a terrible point and effort by Packer. 

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

He doesn't like Elder Packer who is portrayed as an evil man. Also dredges up the Gordon Hinckley's "I don't know" interview to question his integrity. Church leaders are part of a deceptive conspiracy to cover up the truth of church history.

I agree that he took this way further than he or I could know.  And for that it is a problem.  But his overall point is good.  His taking apart of Packer's talk is well done.  His setting up the context is very good and demonstrates the weakness of this whole affair, in my estimation. 

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Some here knew Leonard Arrington. I have enjoyed his writings. Is it fair to say he was demoted from his position as Church Historian to a professor at BYU? Is it fair to claim Elder Packer was an unethical liar?

It's fair to say Leonard Arrington's goal was never met as an historian and that that largely depended on the leaders above him.  He simply was not allowed to do history, very well.  Elder Packer has lied as have all of us.  I think this clearly demonstrates the real weakness of Elder Packer's talk.  It is interesting to note Elder Packer was opposed to openness, at least to some degree.  it is interesting to note his disdain for researchers, historians and intellectuals, at least to some extent.  But mistakes happen.  We need to acknowledge them and move on. 

Overall I'd give the podcast a solid B.  I'd agree it took the point too far and thus loses some level of credibility but overall pretty good. 

[Jeanne]

I just wanted to apologize for not giving subject to the closed thread.  In Tooele taking care of parents and was doing everything 90 miles an hour...

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just wanted to apologize for not giving subject to the closed thread.  In Tooele taking care of parents and was doing everything 90 miles an hour...

Are you sure there are any speed limits posted at 90 miles per hour?  The few times I've been there it seems the posted limits were generally closer to 35, as I drove through town. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

On hidden history, how about Widstoe editing quotes from Brigham Young for Discourses of Brigham Young. He took quotes that taught Adam-God, doctored them so they looked like they conform with current teachings, and then included them in Discourses?

 

[Kevin Christensen]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On hidden history, how about Widstoe editing quotes from Brigham Young for Discourses of Brigham Young. He took quotes that taught Adam-God, doctored them so they looked like they conform with current teachings, and then included them in Discourses?

 

"Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same sets of problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific."  Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 138).

Once a person gets past the urge to get all shocked and scandalized, it is possible to see human beings in the church acting like human beings because they are human beings, and not because they have some special and exclusive Mormon taint that discredits the community as a whole.

Peter Novick, author of That Nobel Dream about the notion of objectivity in the American History profession spoke to a group of Mormon Historians at Sunstone:

Quote

I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it [the ideal of objectivity] has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.

Quoted by me here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

I was around when the famous Packer talk to seminary teachers was given and in the many decades since, I have only seen it quoted by the scandalized, never cited as a touchstone by working LDS historians.  Far from being canonized, it seems to have done nothing to prevent things like the Joseph Smith papers project.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It's not hidden to the Mormon scholars etc. But to the average Mormon, maybe. Since it wasn't taught in Seminary or Relief Society and Priesthood, or Gospel Doctrine/Gospel Essentials. 

Now maybe some things will get put into the curriculum, such as Joseph's Smith's polygamy now being taught in Seminary. But still not given to the adults, I guess they are past inoculation. Oh, forgot, we have the church essays. But they weren't well publicized until recently in some talks etc. (but I do remember something in Church News once).

I guess I need the members including my family members to know of the issues so that I can break free of feeling isolated for knowing more than they do.

That's probably the gist of it. For years I felt like an anomaly for knowing things about the church's history when others didn't.

For those who refuse to read and have to be spoon fed all of their knowledge,  

Almost Everything is hidden.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Those words immoral, unethical and a liar are yours in this description.  I'm of the opinion that our leaders make mistakes.  And if there ever was a mistake it was this talk to CES instructors, if you ask me.

As worshipping a false God.  That's a bit misleading. He's asking does God really want these teachers to not tell the truth?  What God would do that?  is basically how he frames it. 

Again this is a bit misleading.  In Packer's talk he really questions historians who want to tell the truth by saying they want to make a profit or because of their egos.  This podcaster, who I think is Corbin V, turns it around if that's what Packer wants to say of historians.  Because Church leaders too have published works.  But why question a historian for publishing works?  It was a terrible point and effort by Packer. 

I agree that he took this way further than he or I could know.  And for that it is a problem.  But his overall point is good.  His taking apart of Packer's talk is well done.  His setting up the context is very good and demonstrates the weakness of this whole affair, in my estimation. 

It's fair to say Leonard Arrington's goal was never met as an historian and that that largely depended on the leaders above him.  He simply was not allowed to do history, very well.  Elder Packer has lied as have all of us.  I think this clearly demonstrates the real weakness of Elder Packer's talk.  It is interesting to note Elder Packer was opposed to openness, at least to some degree.  it is interesting to note his disdain for researchers, historians and intellectuals, at least to some extent.  But mistakes happen.  We need to acknowledge them and move on. 

Overall I'd give the podcast a solid B.  I'd agree it took the point too far and thus loses some level of credibility but overall pretty good. 

Radio Free Mormon (RFM) spends several minutes defining lying from the Gospel Principals manual chapter 31 which says may have been approved by BKP. Leaving out information is deceptive and "can be" lying. (I'm not sure there is that distinction.) RFM says he is trying to avoid calling BKP a liar, but makes the points that telling part of the truth is sinful, that BKP is involved in deceiving the Church and forcing CES to join him in the deception, and sarcastically notes that BKP does not refer to this chapter in his talk. The conclusion that he thinks BKP is a liar is unavoidable.

BKP says if you are a CES teacher and tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" then you are serving the wrong master. RFM sarcastically twists that to say BKP is the master they should serve. BKP wants them to teach deceptive half-truths and inaccurate history and uses Orwellian double-speak to threaten them.

RFM says BKS apparently knows some temple covenants along the lines of being dishonest and deceptive. and that God is a being that deals in half truths.

RFM says by forcing them to lie to the Church, BKP restricts their agency. BKP's God is one who approves deception and restricts agency. BKP favors the God who restricts agency. BKP favors Satan's plan. 

RFM says he is broadcasting behind enemy lines. He makes it abundantly clear that he believes BKP is a General in the enemy's army.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Bernard Gui